Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Date: 2002-08-29 16:14:24
Message-ID: 8775.1030637664@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE:  Adding
> missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202"  It might be helpful to
> dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
> simple change as far as elog.c and guc.c are concerned, but would this
> be overkill?

Hm.  Maybe instead of a boolean, what we want is a message level
variable: log original query if it triggers a message >= severity X.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2002-08-29 17:17:35
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable
Previous:From: Thomas F. O'ConnellDate: 2002-08-29 16:13:03
Subject: the optimizer and exists

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tomoyuki NiijimaDate: 2002-08-29 16:43:58
Subject: make check hang on AIX 5L p690 4way/I have two solutions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-29 16:11:19
Subject: Re: Visibility regression test

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group