Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have coded up the following patch which places LOG just above ERROR in
> > log_min_error_statement.
> LOG_NO_STATEMENT?  What *are* you thinking?  The kindest word I can find
> for this is "baroque".
> What I had in mind was a one-line patch:
>       if (edata->elevel >= log_min_error_statement && debug_query_string != 
> becomes
>       if (is_log_level_output(edata->elevel, log_min_error_statement) && 
> debug_query_string != NULL)

What are *you* thinking?  Yes, that patch has that line, but
log_statement and log_min_duration_statement is going to trigger
log_min_error_statement so you are going to get the statement printed
twice.  LOG_NO_STATEMENT fixes that.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to