Bruce Momjian said:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> >The problem I see with this patch is that it doesn't print the error
>> >query on a syntax error. That seems wrong.
>> >
>>
>> It does print it. In fact the example I gave below which is from a
>> real trace shows it being printed. It is just printed after the error
>> message rather than before.
>>
>> You solution doesn't appear to address the problem of what to do if
>> they ask for only DDL and one of those generates a syntax error.
>
> My comment was that if they type "UP8ATE", and it is a syntax error, we
> have no way to know if it was a DDL or not, so we don't print it.
>
> My idea was to take log_statement, and instead of true/false, have it
> be all, ddl, mod, or off/none/false(?). You keep the existing test for
> log_statement where it is, but test for 'all' now, and after parse, you
> check for ddl or mod, and print in those cases if the tag matches.
>
> If they want ddl and errors, they can use log_min_error_statement to
> see just statement error, and set log_statement accordingly.
>
The problem is that you are anticipating my solution for the selectivity
issue before I have written or submitted it. My question was different and
narrower - namely will the patch I sent, as it stands, and forgetting the
selectivity issue for the moment, break anything?
When I actually send in a patch to implement statement log selectivity, I
will give you free license to pull it to bits to your heart's content.
cheers
andrew