Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering
Date: 2016-03-29 15:37:19
Message-ID: 20160329153719.GA848699@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Steele wrote:
> On 3/29/16 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> >Repurposing COMMERROR is definitely starting to seem like a low-impact
> >solution compared to these others. Under what circumstances would you
> >be wanting hide-from-client with an elevel different from LOG, anyway?
>
> In pgaudit the log level for audit messages is user configurable but this
> was mostly added for testing purposes on the client side. I don't think it
> would be a big deal to force the level to LOG when client output is
> suppressed.

So audit records would use COMMERROR? That sounds really bad to me.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2016-03-29 15:43:18 Re: 2016-03 Commitfest
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-03-29 15:34:23 Re: Some messages of pg_rewind --debug not getting translated