Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>I think I'd prefer that to having it tied to the log_min_error_statement > >>level. But I don't care that much. > >> > >> > > > >OK, at least we understand each other. Right now we don't have any > >special "syntax error" log processing. We have errors logged through > >log_min_error_statement, and mod/ddl through the new log_statement. > > > >I can see a use case for having mod/ddl control of logging, and error > >control of logging, but why would you want to see syntax error queries > >but not other error queries? That's why I think log_min_error_statement > >is sufficient. If we add syntax logging,Thinks wouldn't that conflict with > >log_min_error_statement logging, because those are errors too. Maybe we > >need to add a 'synax' mode to log_min_error_statement above error that > >logs only syntax errors but not others. > > > > > > > > Thinks .... experiments .... yes, OK, I agree. Please forgive any > denseness. Not sure if we need another level.
No problem. It is good to think through these things to make sure we have everything covered. > Why do we have log_min_error_statement default to PANIC level? Wouldn't > ERROR be a better default? Panic basically means off, meaning we don't print queries that generate errors. Should we print them by default? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
