Bruce,
On 4/11/06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> but at this stage, I am thinking your using a
> home-grown patch is your best approach.
That's what we decided to do even if maintaining our own RPM packages
is not what we used to do for critical software like PostgreSQL.
Thanks to Devrim's work, it was
The bottom line is that while I can see reasons for making log_duration
more than boolean, adding more complexity to the logging system for this
corner case probably isn't a good idea. If we get more such requests,
we can reconsider it, but at this stage, I am thinking your using a
home-grown pat
Tom,
On 3/30/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really find it pretty bizarre to want to log a duration without
> logging the statement that caused it. Seems like the
> log_min_duration_statement parameter ought to be enough. These logging
> options are already messy and unintuitive, an
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As explained in the previous thread, we used to play with log_duration
> and log_min_error_statement to have the following behaviour:
> - log every duration so that we can have a global overview of the
> database activity;
> - log statement only for sl
