Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query

From: torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
Date: 2021-05-13 10:12:39
Message-ID: 7c80e4a2d41232eefcdb418c70c4a1a1@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-05-13 18:36, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:57 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for the idea. I did not read the complete patch but while reading
>> > through the patch, I noticed that you using elevel as LOG for printing
>> > the stack trace. But I think the backend whose pid you have passed,
>> > the connected client to that backend might not have superuser
>> > privileges and if you use elevel LOG then that message will be sent to
>> > that connected client as well and I don't think that is secure. So
>> > can we use LOG_SERVER_ONLY so that we can prevent
>> > it from sending to the client.
>>
>> True, we should use LOG_SERVER_ONLY and not send any logs to the
>> client.

Thanks, agree with changing it to LOG_SERVER_ONLY.

> I further tend to think that, is it correct to log queries with LOG
> level when log_statement GUC is set? Or should it also be
> LOG_SERVER_ONLY?

I feel it's OK to log with LOG_SERVER_ONLY since the log from
log_statement GUC would be printed already and independently.
ISTM people don't expect to log_statement GUC works even on
pg_log_current_plan(), do they?

Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2021-05-13 10:21:13 Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()
Previous Message Peter Smith 2021-05-13 10:00:27 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions