Re: log_line_info

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I haven't had any other feedback on this patch that I posted. However,
> I'm a bit dissatisfied with it for a couple of reasons:
>
> . when a connection is logged we don't yet know the user and database,
> because we haven't processed the initial packet yet. That causes %U and
> %D to produce empty strings, which looks mildly ugly. I'm inclined in
> this case to emit something like "****" or "[unknown]" for these escapes.
>
> . we don't produce any output for postmaster, stats collector etc.
> processes. If we really want to get rid of log_pid and log_timestamp
> this needs to be dealt with, IMNSHO. We could handle that in a few ways:
> - have a separate GUC var (log_line_info_postmaster?) Not much gain
> over keeping the existing vars, though
> - have a special marker in the string (%X maybe) that says stop
> processing for postmaster here.
> Example: "%T [%P]:%X %U(at)%D(%C:%S %I line:%L "
> - have a special marker where what follows is the postmaster variant,
> defaulting to the beginning if not found.
> Examples: "%T [%P]: " (everybody gets timestamp and pid)
> "%T [%P]: %U(at)%D(%C:%S %I line:%L %X%T [%P]:" (same effect
> as example under previous point)
> - something else I haven't thought of ;-)

Seems the cleanest would be to just print nothing for items that have no
meaning for the postmaster.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073