On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:15, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, if we are going to insist on rewriting substantial chunks of
> the logging infrastructure before doing this, we at least need to
> reach some agreement on what would be an acceptable outcome - and then
> let Stephen code that up as a separate patch, submit it, get it
> committed, and then do this on top of that. Or we can just decide
> that adding one relatively minor field to the text format output is
> not worth knocking over the applecart for.
Well, one of the reasons I picked up this patch is its a feature *I*
want. I remember being quite surprised at the role csv logging reports
when i switched to it. I was logging everything so I have on occasion
had to find a SET ROLE and follow the session... its quite annoying
:-)
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 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.
