Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > This is not the first GUC that has needed this.
> 
> Exactly.  I think that we simply made a mistake in the initial
> implementation of log_min_error_statement: we failed to think about
> whether it should use client or server priority ordering, and the
> easy-to-code behavior was the wrong one.

I have coded up the following patch which places LOG just above ERROR in
log_min_error_statement.

It also adds the new log level LOG_NO_STATEMENT, which is used only for
internal use by ereport() calls that should not print the statement. 
This is particularly useful so log_statemant and
log_min_duration_statement do not print the statement twice.

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

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

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? at 2007-02-26 20:15:43 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? at 2007-03-01 05:45:54 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-03-01 02:09:55
	Subject: Re: What is CheckPoint.undo needed for?
Previous:	From: ITAGAKI Takahiro	Date: 2007-03-01 02:00:36
	Subject: Re: VACUUM and spoiling the buffer manager cache

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-03-01 02:08:43
	Subject: Re: Split _bt_insertonpg to two functions
Previous:	From: Patric Bechtel	Date: 2007-03-01 01:37:28
	Subject: Re: Numeric patch to add special-case representations for < 8 bytes