| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |
| Date: | 2015-11-16 02:50:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YEN+uCSTqB82y21wMDxdKKGC1Om4Cwdc02Vg7ayZHMAPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 November 2015 at 09:50, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> I haven't seen this discussed before, but I don't find the name
> pg_report_log particularly good. Why not jut pg_log?
>
>
Sounds like a better name to me. 'report' is noise that adds nothing useful.
I'd like to have this functionality.
I'd prefer to omit fields if explicitly assigned to NULL. You can always
use coalesce if you want the string 'NULL'; I agree with others here that
the vast majority of users will want the field just omitted.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-11-16 03:24:28 | Re: pam auth - add rhost item |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2015-11-16 02:46:33 | Re: [PATCH] Skip ALTER x SET SCHEMA if the schema didn't change |