Re: log_statement output for protocol prepare/bind/execute

Sorry, this is the right patch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

bruce wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > ! (errmsg("statement: [protocol] <BIND> %s", portal_name)));
> >
> > > --- 1452,1460 ----
> > > ! (errmsg("statement: <protocol> <BIND> %s [PREPARE: %s]",
> > > ! *portal_name ? portal_name : "<unnamed>",
> > > ! portal->sourceText ? portal->sourceText : "")));
> >
> > This is getting less readable not more so; and you still haven't got the
> > prepared statement's name in there, let alone any place to put the
> > parameter values.
> >
> > Perhaps we should give up on the idea that this can all fit on one log
> > line? Maybe
> >
> > LOG: parse: <statement-name>
> > DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
> >
> > LOG: bind: <portal-name> to <statement-name>
> > DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
> > parameter 1: <parameter value>
> > parameter 2: <parameter value>
> > ...
> >
> > LOG: execute: <portal-name>
> > DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
> >
> > The $64 question here is whether we want to repeat the source-text
> > in all three messages (parse, bind, execute) or try to reduce the
> > verbosity.
>
> I modified the code to store the user statement name in the portal for
> protocol execute, so I can print the user name at that time. Here is
> the new output:
>
> LOG: statement protocol prepare sel1: SELECT 1;
> LOG: statement protocol bind sel1: SELECT 1;
> LOG: statement protocol execute sel1: SELECT 1;
>
> Patch attached. I am also attaching my test program. Should I put that
> in CVS somewhere? Libpq.sgml.
>
> I had to pstrdup() the statement name. Is that OK?

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +