Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I can create a global variable to control this, but the new elog level > > seemed cleaner. > > What I don't like about the proposed patch is that it's nonorthogonal. > I see no reason to suppose that LOG is the only possible elevel for > which it might be interesting to suppress the STATEMENT: field.
True. > Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport > auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag > in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT. > This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(), > but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway. One idea I had was to set the high-bit of elevel to control whether we want to suppress statement logging, but I think errprintstmt() might be best. I don't understand the ereport stack well enough to add this functionality, though. What should I look for? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
