Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>I think I'd prefer that to having it tied to the log_min_error_statement
> >>level. But I don't care that much.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >OK, at least we understand each other. Right now we don't have any
> >special "syntax error" log processing. We have errors logged through
> >log_min_error_statement, and mod/ddl through the new log_statement.
> >
> >I can see a use case for having mod/ddl control of logging, and error
> >control of logging, but why would you want to see syntax error queries
> >but not other error queries? That's why I think log_min_error_statement
> >is sufficient. If we add syntax logging,Thinks wouldn't that conflict with
> >log_min_error_statement logging, because those are errors too. Maybe we
> >need to add a 'synax' mode to log_min_error_statement above error that
> >logs only syntax errors but not others.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thinks .... experiments .... yes, OK, I agree. Please forgive any
> denseness. Not sure if we need another level.
No problem. It is good to think through these things to make sure we
have everything covered.
> Why do we have log_min_error_statement default to PANIC level? Wouldn't
> ERROR be a better default?
Panic basically means off, meaning we don't print queries that generate
errors. Should we print them by default?
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073