Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior
> > >> from what it used to do.
> >
> > > I think it would be useful to have the log results from a test program
> > > in the protocol section,
> >
> > The contents of the postmaster log are surely not part of the FE protocol.
> > Clients can't even see the log without resorting to nonstandard hacks.
>
> OK, can we please put the example from -hackers into the docs,
> somewhere, with particular note of which protocol messages result in
> which logging output?

If people want to know the output, run a program and look at the
postmaster logs. If we document it, we have to keep it current, even if
we improve it later. I will say I had trouble testing this logging
because it requires a C program to use that protocol. Here is the test
program I used.

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

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