Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > ! (errmsg("statement: [protocol] <BIND> %s", portal_name)));
>
> > --- 1452,1460 ----
> > ! (errmsg("statement: <protocol> <BIND> %s [PREPARE: %s]",
> > ! *portal_name ? portal_name : "<unnamed>",
> > ! portal->sourceText ? portal->sourceText : "")));
>
> This is getting less readable not more so; and you still haven't got the
> prepared statement's name in there, let alone any place to put the
> parameter values.
I thought the portal name was the statement name. Seems I was wrong.
> Perhaps we should give up on the idea that this can all fit on one log
> line? Maybe
>
> LOG: parse: <statement-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
>
> LOG: bind: <portal-name> to <statement-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
> parameter 1: <parameter value>
> parameter 2: <parameter value>
> ...
>
> LOG: execute: <portal-name>
> DETAIL: statement: <source-text>
>
> The $64 question here is whether we want to repeat the source-text
> in all three messages (parse, bind, execute) or try to reduce the
> verbosity.
We don't print DETAIL in the logs, do we?
Does anyone have C code that uses these features so I can test?
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
