Thank you all for the effort you put into response.
The biggest thing I want to avoid isn't so much having to parse through
the log files but to avoid turning on such extensive logging altogether.
I am not sure what kind of additional load logging to this extent may
add.
Looks like I am not going to have much in the way of alternative.
Maybe some day.
Good news is that most access is via Web Interface and I capture most
activity that way.
Again thank you all.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:03 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com; Andrew Dunstan; Hogan, James F. Jr.;
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] audit table containing Select statements
submitted
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Hmmm... well why don't we add log_line_suffix :)
Doesn't help; you'd also need logic in there to quote any XML tags
appearing in the message text. At that point, adding a
"log_line_suffix" is a transparent pretense of generality --- what
you might as well do is just have a full-fledged "emit the log in XML"
switch.
(I concur with Andrew's comments that this is pretty silly, unless
someone wants to go to the further work of XML-ifying the message
contents to some reasonable extent. If you are going to have to write a
parser to make sense of the message contents, it is really pretty lame
to claim that you can't cope with parsing the current log format as-is.)
regards, tom lane
