Tom Lane wrote: > "Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 1/12/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (2) there is already a generalized solution to this, it's called > >> log_min_error_statement. > > > I didn't think of that when posting my message but Bruce seems to say > > that we can't use it in this case. > > Dunno why he thinks that. But there is a point here that could use > improvement: shouldn't log_min_error_statement be measured on the same > scale as log_min_messages, ie, LOG is relatively high priority rather > than relatively low priority? As the code stands, you'd have to knock > it down to DEBUG1 in order to see the statement generating a LOG > message. This might be harmless (since messages below log_min_messages > won't generate log output at all), but it's surely a bit confusing.
I assume log_min_error_messages wasn't supported because it isn't listed in the postgresql.conf file as a valid value. Let me look at adding LOG in there in the place you suggest. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
