| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"? |
| Date: | 2017-08-16 03:14:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20170816031404.ynyws75hbw35x3n2@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Thomas Munro 2017-08-10 <CAEepm=09jnV7hK5rTxPp816bMuve7dJGbjtEcjeXrhAELHFxqw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> > > Agreed. Here's a version that skips those useless detail messages
> > > using a coding pattern I found elsewhere.
> >
> > Rebased after bf6b9e94.
>
> > message ? errdetail("Diagnostic message: %s", message) : 0));
>
> "Diagnostic message" doesn't really mean anything, and printing
> "DETAIL: Diagnostic message: <something>" seems redundant to me. Maybe
> drop that prefix? It should be clear from the context that this is a
> message from the LDAP layer.
I think making it visible that the message comes from LDAP (rather than
Postgres or anything else) is valuable. How about this?
LOG: could not start LDAP TLS session: Protocol error
DETAIL: LDAP diagnostics: unsupported extended operation.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafia Sabih | 2017-08-16 03:35:20 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-08-16 02:13:41 | Re: Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |