| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering |
| Date: | 2016-03-29 16:16:00 |
| Message-ID: | 56FAAA40.1070602@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/29/16 11:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/29/16 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> Repurposing COMMERROR is definitely starting to seem like a low-impact
>>> solution compared to these others. Under what circumstances would you
>>> be wanting hide-from-client with an elevel different from LOG, anyway?
>>
>> In pgaudit the log level for audit messages is user configurable but this
>> was mostly added for testing purposes on the client side. I don't think it
>> would be a big deal to force the level to LOG when client output is
>> suppressed.
>
> So audit records would use COMMERROR? That sounds really bad to me.
I'm not a big fan of it myself but my ideas don't seem to be getting any
traction...
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2016-03-29 16:17:17 | Re: unexpected result from to_tsvector |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-03-29 16:14:11 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |