Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues
Date: 2005-09-16 11:55:56
Message-ID: 432AB2CC.9010307@opencloud.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think it is more verbose because no FETCH is logged in this type of
> prepare/execute. The goal, I think, is for these type of queries to
> look as similar to normal PREPARE/EXECUTE and DECLARE/FETCH as possible.

I do not understand why this is a useful thing to do as part of
log_statement.

My point is that given JDBC code like this:

Statement s = connection.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = s.executeQuery("SELECT * FROM pg_proc");
while (rs.next()) {
// Process results
}

it seems that the least surprising thing to get logged is simply "SELECT
* FROM pg_proc".

I don't see how logging a synthetic PREPARE/EXECUTE/FETCH sequence (and
DECLARE, now?) is useful. They're not necessarily syntactically correct,
and they're certainly not queries that were actually sent to the
backend. I thought log_statement was meant to answer the question "what
queries were submitted to the backend?", rather than to provide a trace
of protocol-level activity..

-O

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Maier 2005-09-16 12:25:21 Re: when started century? PostgreSQL vs Oracle diff
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2005-09-16 11:47:10 Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2005-09-16 14:24:10 psql \x bug
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2005-09-16 11:47:10 Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues