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
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 02:26, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
> > >
> > > Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
> > > now) that such a behavior is useless, and no one's weighed in in its
> > > favor ...
> > I completely agree. Nothing wrong with adding another guc variable and
> > since it is a debug variable people expect lots of verbosity.
> Attached is the patch. debug_print_error_query is set to false by default.
> For want of a better phrase, I've prepended 'original query: ' to the
> error message to highlight why it is in the log.
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas F. O'Connell||Date: 2002-08-29 16:13:03|
|Subject: the optimizer and exists|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-08-29 15:16:20|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-08-29 16:11:19|
|Subject: Re: Visibility regression test |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-08-29 16:02:59|
|Subject: Re: Proposed patch for qual pushdown into UNION/INTERSECT |