Re: log_line_info

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> I haven't had any other feedback on this patch that I posted. However, 
> I'm a bit dissatisfied with it for a couple of reasons:
> 
> . when a connection is logged we don't yet know the user and database, 
> because we haven't processed the initial packet yet. That causes %U and 
> %D to produce empty strings, which looks mildly ugly. I'm inclined in 
> this case to emit something like "****" or "[unknown]" for these escapes.
> 
> . we don't produce any output for postmaster, stats collector etc. 
> processes. If we really want to get rid of log_pid and log_timestamp 
> this needs to be dealt with, IMNSHO. We could handle that in a few ways:
>   - have a separate GUC var (log_line_info_postmaster?) Not much gain 
> over keeping the existing vars, though
>   - have a special marker in the string (%X maybe) that says stop 
> processing for postmaster here.
>     Example: "%T [%P]:%X %U@%D(%C:%S %I line:%L "
>   - have a special marker where what follows is the postmaster variant, 
> defaulting to the beginning if not found.
>     Examples: "%T [%P]: " (everybody gets timestamp and pid)
>               "%T [%P]: %U@%D(%C:%S %I line:%L %X%T [%P]:" (same effect 
> as example under previous point)
>   - something else I haven't thought of ;-)

Seems the cleanest would be to just print nothing for items that have no
meaning for the postmaster.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073