Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Right now we have log_min_error_statement:
>>>
>>> #log_min_error_statement = panic # Values in order of increasing severity:
>>> # debug5, debug4, debug3, debug2, debug1,
>>> # info, notice, warning, error, panic(off)
>>>
>>>which does allow control of printing only statements generating errors,
>>>which includes syntax errors. I don't see why this functionality should
>>>be mixed in with log_statement.
>>>
>>>Did you want a 'syntax error' level to log_statement, that would print
>>>only statements with syntax errors but not other errors? That doesn't
>>>seem very useful to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It wasn't my idea, but I thought it was a good one. But it would go
>>along with the idea of these settings as a list instead of a hierarchy,
>>e.g.:
>>
>>log_statement = "syntax-errors, ddl, mod"
>>
>>In fact, I liked it so much that I thought "syntax-errors" should be the
>>default instead of "none".
>>
>>I think I'd prefer that to having it tied to the log_min_error_statement
>>level. But I don't care that much.
>>
>>
>
>OK, at least we understand each other. Right now we don't have any
>special "syntax error" log processing. We have errors logged through
>log_min_error_statement, and mod/ddl through the new log_statement.
>
>I can see a use case for having mod/ddl control of logging, and error
>control of logging, but why would you want to see syntax error queries
>but not other error queries? That's why I think log_min_error_statement
>is sufficient. If we add syntax logging,Thinks wouldn't that conflict with
>log_min_error_statement logging, because those are errors too. Maybe we
>need to add a 'synax' mode to log_min_error_statement above error that
>logs only syntax errors but not others.
>
>
>
Thinks .... experiments .... yes, OK, I agree. Please forgive any
denseness. Not sure if we need another level.
Why do we have log_min_error_statement default to PANIC level? Wouldn't
ERROR be a better default?
cheers
andrew
