| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering | 
| Date: | 2016-02-01 22:25:41 | 
| Message-ID: | 20160201222541.GA100803@alvherre.pgsql | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
David Steele wrote:
> On 1/11/16 6:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >David Steele wrote:
> >>The patch creates a new counter to separate the log filtering from the
> >>authentication functionality.  This makes it possible to get the same
> >>filtering in other parts of the code (or extensions) without abusing the
> >>ClientAuthInProgress variable or using the log hook.
> >
> >Hmm, okay, but this would need a large blinking comment explaining that
> >the calling code have better set a PG_TRY block when incrementing, so
> >that on errors it resets to zero again.  Or maybe some handling in
> >AbortOutOfAnyTransaction/AbortCurrentTransaction.  or both.
> 
> In the case of pgaudit only the ereport call is wrapped in the
> LimitClientLogOutput() calls which I thought was safe - am I wrong about
> that?
Yeah, errstart itself could fail. It's not common but it does happen.
> 1) Unless pgaudit is committed there wouldn't be any code calling the
> errhidefromclient() function and that seemed like a bad plan.
Well, you could add a test module to ensure it continues to work.
> 2) There would be two different ways to suppress client messages but I was
> hoping to only have one.
I think they are two different things actually.
I'm closing this as returned with feedback.
-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-01 22:32:15 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing | 
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-01 22:18:21 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |