Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful to have the log results from a test program in the protocol section, so interface designers know what will get logged from various protocol sequences. That way JDBC people and others can interpret what their own interfaces should look like for 8.2 -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging
On 31-Oct-06, at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. to be honest I don't know, and looking at the logs I suspect that this is just logging duration, however it's still looking pretty ambiguous. ( I will get the settings, my client is on the other side of the world) what exactly does it mean ? The total operation was 4.365ms and the parse was .672 and bind was .128? Is it possible for different connections to be interleaved? I still think having the parse, bind,execute show the statement name makes sense if for no other reason than clarity. I would think writing a log parser would be fairly challenging without them. Dave regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging
On 1-Nov-06, at 6:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful to have the log results from a test program in the protocol section, so interface designers know what will get logged from various protocol sequences. I think some sort of examples are in order, or more consistency. That way JDBC people and others can interpret what their own interfaces should look like for 8.2 from a JDBC point of view we don't look at the logs in the API. I am just debugging something -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful to have the log results from a test program in the protocol section, The contents of the postmaster log are surely not part of the FE protocol. Clients can't even see the log without resorting to nonstandard hacks. OK, can we please put the example from -hackers into the docs, somewhere, with particular note of which protocol messages result in which logging output? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
