On 11/15/15 9:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 16 November 2015 at 09:50, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net
> <mailto:peter_e@gmx.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.
I think the problem was that you can't omit the primary message.
