On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:56 PM, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02@gmail.com> wrote: >> The real question is why the existing functionality in plpgsql isn't >> sufficient. Somebody who wants a "log from SQL" function can easily >> write a simple plpgsql function that does exactly what they want, >> with no more or fewer bells-n-whistles than they need. If we try >> to create a SQL function that does all that, it's likely to be a mess >> to use, even with named arguments. >> >> I'm not necessarily against the basic idea, but I think inventing >> something that actually offers an increment in usability compared >> to the existing alternative is going to be harder than it sounds. >> > > I agree with your inputs. We can build pl/pgsql function as alternative for > this. > > My initial proposal, and implementation was, logging messages to log file > irrespectively of our log settings. I was not sure we can do this with some > pl/perlu. And then, I started working on our to do item, > ereport, wrapper callable from SQL, and found it can be useful to have a > direct function call with required log level.
But, why?
I am admitting here that, I don’t know the real use case behind this proposal in our TODO list. I thought, having ereport wrapper at SQL level, gives a default debugging behavior for the end users, and this is the only real use case I see.
I just took a look at the latest patch and I can't see why it's any better than just using PL/pgsql's RAISE statement.
Sure, it’s a clear fact that, we can implement this function with RAISE statements.
