OK, attached patch applied. I made a few changes. I added a mention
they may want to enable LOG_PID because there is no guarantee that the
statement and error will appear next to each other in the log file. I
also renamed 'query' to 'statement' to be more precise.
Also, is there any way to di
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's a pretty good idea. Now, what format will the argument take: text
> > (NOTICE, ERROR, DEBUG, etc) or integer? The increasing severity is clear
> > with numbers but the correlation to NOTICE, ERROR etc is un
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's a pretty good idea. Now, what format will the argument take: text
> (NOTICE, ERROR, DEBUG, etc) or integer? The increasing severity is clear
> with numbers but the correlation to NOTICE, ERROR etc is undocumented
> IIRC. On the other hand, the text
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
> > > missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
> > > dump out the query on notice messages
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 19:04, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
> > > missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
> > > dump out
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
> > missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
> > dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
On August 29, 2002 12:09 pm, Robert Treat wrote:
> One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
> missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
> dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
> simple change as far as elog.c and g
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
> missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
> dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
> simple change as far as elog.c and guc.c are
One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE: Adding
missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202" It might be helpful to
dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
simple change as far as elog.c and guc.c are concerned, but would this
be overkill?
Robert T
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > > 3. Not sure what the "original" is for -- you're not transforming
> > > anything.
> >
> > Agreed. Just call it "Error query". Seems clear to me.
> What about rule(s) transformation(s)? Will we see the real query or the
> transformed query?
Well, looking at Gavin's
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 14:05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry writes:
> >
> > > Attached is the patch. debug_print_error_query is set to false by default.
> > >
> > > For want of a better phrase, I've prepended 'original query: ' to the
> > > error message to highli
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gavin Sherry writes:
>
> > Attached is the patch. debug_print_error_query is set to false by default.
> >
> > For want of a better phrase, I've prepended 'original query: ' to the
> > error message to highlight why it is in the log.
>
> >From your resident How-To-Name-S
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> Do you think that 'original query: ..' looks a bit like bad english? Should
> it be properly capitalised? ie. 'Original query: ...'? Just nitpicking...
I find it's generally better to not capitalize anything in program
messages, unless the sentence/paragraph
Gavin Sherry writes:
> Attached is the patch. debug_print_error_query is set to false by default.
>
> For want of a better phrase, I've prepended 'original query: ' to the
> error message to highlight why it is in the log.
>From your resident How-To-Name-Stuff Nitpicker:
1. The names of the deb
l query: ...'? Just nitpicking...
Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gavin Sherry
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 2:27 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Hackers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] P
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
> >
> > Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
> > now) that such a b
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
>
> Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
> now) that such a behavior is useless, and no one's weighed in in its
> fav
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree that a 'trimmed' query is likely to be useless, but the idea of
>> printing the query on ERROR is a big win for me:
>
> Certainly. I think though that an on-or-off GUC option is sufficient.
> We don'
OK, just go with a boolean and admins can decide if they want it.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I agree that a 'trimmed' query is likely to be useless, but the idea of
> > printin
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:17, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > > > But we should have some default to print some of the query, because
> > > > right now we print none of it. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is
> > > > bette
> > A settable trim length would probably be a good idea, I suppose, for
> > those slinging 'bytea' and toasted texts around.
> Yes, but the default should be NO TRIM or in 1K-4K range. IMHO
Ditto.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and un
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that a 'trimmed' query is likely to be useless, but the idea of
> printing the query on ERROR is a big win for me:
Certainly. I think though that an on-or-off GUC option is sufficient.
We don't need a length, and we definitely don't need
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:30, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:08:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
> >
> > Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make tha
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:08:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
>
> Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
> now) that such a behavior is useless, and no one's wei
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But we should have some default to print some of the query,
Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
now) that such a behavior is useless, and no one's weighed in in its
favor ...
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > > But we should have some default to print some of the query, because
> > > right now we print none of it. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is
> > > better than what we have, and is a reasonable default.
> > On an e
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > But we should have some default to print some of the query, because
> > right now we print none of it. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is
> > better than what we have, and is a reasonable default.
> On an error, you may not be able to reproduce it. Why not print th
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 15:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
> > > without a query, but some queries are very large.
> > >
> > > How about if we
Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
> > without a query, but some queries are very large.
> >
> > How about if we print only the first 80 characters of the query, with
> > newlines,
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 15:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
> > without a query, but some queries are very large.
> >
> > How about if we print only the first 80 characters of the query, with
> > newlin
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
> without a query, but some queries are very large.
>
> How about if we print only the first 80 characters of the query, with
> newlines, tabs, and spaces reduced to a si
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 15:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
> without a query, but some queries are very large.
>
> How about if we print only the first 80 characters of the query, with
> newlines, tabs, and spaces reduced to a si
I had an idea on this. It seems pretty pointless to show a query error
without a query, but some queries are very large.
How about if we print only the first 80 characters of the query, with
newlines, tabs, and spaces reduced to a single space, and send that as
LOG to the server logs. That wou
33 matches
Mail list logo
