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
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 |