log_statement output for protocol prepare/bind/execute

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > ! (errmsg("statement: [protocol] <BIND> %s", portal_name)));
>
> > --- 1452,1460 ----
> > ! (errmsg("statement: <protocol> <BIND> %s [PREPARE: %s]",
> > ! *portal_name ? portal_name : "<unnamed>",
> > ! portal->sourceText ? portal->sourceText : "")));
>
> This is getting less readable not more so; and you still haven't got the
> prepared statement's name in there, let alone any place to put the
> parameter values.
>
> Perhaps we should give up on the idea that this can all fit on one log
> line? Maybe
>
> LOG: parse: <statement-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
>
> LOG: bind: <portal-name> to <statement-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
> parameter 1: <parameter value>
> parameter 2: <parameter value>
> ...
>
> LOG: execute: <portal-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
>
> The $64 question here is whether we want to repeat the source-text
> in all three messages (parse, bind, execute) or try to reduce the
> verbosity.

I modified the code to store the user statement name in the portal for
protocol execute, so I can print the user name at that time. Here is
the new output:

LOG: statement protocol prepare sel1: SELECT 1;
LOG: statement protocol bind sel1: SELECT 1;
LOG: statement protocol execute sel1: SELECT 1;

Patch attached. I am also attaching my test program. Should I put that
in CVS somewhere? Libpq.sgml.

I had to pstrdup() the statement name. Is that OK?

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

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