From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message |
Date: | 2018-06-22 20:03:51 |
Message-ID: | 20180622200351.j2tlfoknpwqncxbz@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-22 15:50:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-06-22 15:26:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > I think a fair argument could be made that you'd want to have
> > > > > application_name logged exactly once, not in every line. Just to cope
> > > > > with log volume. With decent log analysis tools once is enough.
> > > >
> > > > Seems harder than it sounds ... because if the user turns off
> > > > log_connections then it's not longer in the log.
> > >
> > > That's superuser only, so I really don't quite buy that argument.
> >
> > I meant if the DBA disables it in postgresql.conf then the info is
> > nowhere.
>
> I'm not following - application_name isn't logged anywhere by default
> currently either.
Right. I +1'd the proposal to have it in the log_connections line.
My mind was wandering about doing more than that (or doing something
different), but let's not derail the thread.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-06-22 20:14:05 | Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-22 19:53:16 | Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message |