Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering
Date: 2016-02-03 04:02:20
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY1wjAmeOhW005a6EQmSHaH6Aj7ftSF9sdxax+M7bktVw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:24 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 2/1/16 5:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> David Steele wrote:
>
>>> 2) There would be two different ways to suppress client messages but I was
>>> hoping to only have one.
>>
>> I think they are two different things actually.
>
> Fair enough - that was my initial reaction as well but then I thought
> the other way would be better.
>
>> I'm closing this as returned with feedback.
>
> I have attached a patch that adds an ereport() macro to suppress client
> output for a single report call (applies cleanly on 1d0c3b3). I'll also
> move it to the next CF.

I don't see any reason not to accept this.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-02-03 04:10:39 Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-03 03:58:15 Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit