"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then
>>> invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed.
>>> LOG is not on the list of options there, otherwise I would use it.
>> 
>> As I said, you don't understand how the logging priority control works.
>> LOG *is* the appropriate level for stuff intended to go to the server log.

> Please look at the definition of log_min_error_statement, so you
> understand where I'm coming from.

I *have* read the definition of log_min_error_statement.  (The SGML docs
are wrong btw, as a quick look at the code shows that LOG is an accepted
value.)

The real issue here is that send_message_to_server_log just does

        if (edata->elevel >= log_min_error_statement && debug_query_string != 
NULL)

to determine whether to log the statement, whereas arguably it should be
using a test like is_log_level_output --- that is, the priority ordering
for log_min_error_statement should be like log_min_messages not like
client_min_messages.  We've discussed that before in another thread, but
it looks like nothing's been done yet.  In any case, if you're unhappy
with the code's choice of whether to emit the STATEMENT part of a log
message, some changes here are what's indicated, not bizarre choices of
elevel for individual messages.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to