* Alex Hunsaker (badalex@gmail.com) wrote:
> I think if Stephen was proposing 10 fields, or if there was a list of
> fields we were planning on adding in the next release or 3, it might
> be worth re-factoring.
I know of at least one person (in an earlier piece of the thread
discussing this patch) who was talking about other fields they'd like
included in the CSV log which aren't currently. I don't recall what
that was though, but I think it might have been something like line #
from inside stored procedures..
> I know of no such list, and I think this field
> useful/important enough that people who are using csv logging would
> want it anyway. +1 on just tacking on the field and causing a flag day
> for csv users.
Honestly, I think it was *me* who raised the issue that we don't have a
header for CSV logs and that it sucks for people using CSV files. We've
changed it in the past (application_name was added, iirc) and there
wasn't much noise of it that I recall. If everyone's happy with that,
it's fine by me.
I do want to rework the logging infrastructure (as discussed in the dev
meeting), but I see that whole thing as rather orthogonal to this
change.
Thanks,
Stephen
