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

Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

From: Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Date: 2012-05-03 12:34:01
Message-ID: CALDgxVvf9DHUSr8DNRq1TQSoFxWrcFGPjm2OxyvRePr4n+uETA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> > Would we consider adding such a switch (it should be easy enough to
> > do), or do we want to push this off to the mythical "let's improve the
> > logging subsystem" project that might eventually materialize if we're
> > lucky? Meaning - would people object to such a switch?
>
> Yes, if the new parameter allows a generic filter on multiple
> user-specified message types.
>

Are you answering the "Would we consider" or the "would people object"?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-05-03 12:36:56
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-05-03 12:33:10
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

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