Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
От | torikoshia |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7c80e4a2d41232eefcdb418c70c4a1a1@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-05-13 18:36, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:57 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > +1 for the idea. I did not read the complete patch but while reading >> > through the patch, I noticed that you using elevel as LOG for printing >> > the stack trace. But I think the backend whose pid you have passed, >> > the connected client to that backend might not have superuser >> > privileges and if you use elevel LOG then that message will be sent to >> > that connected client as well and I don't think that is secure. So >> > can we use LOG_SERVER_ONLY so that we can prevent >> > it from sending to the client. >> >> True, we should use LOG_SERVER_ONLY and not send any logs to the >> client. Thanks, agree with changing it to LOG_SERVER_ONLY. > I further tend to think that, is it correct to log queries with LOG > level when log_statement GUC is set? Or should it also be > LOG_SERVER_ONLY? I feel it's OK to log with LOG_SERVER_ONLY since the log from log_statement GUC would be printed already and independently. ISTM people don't expect to log_statement GUC works even on pg_log_current_plan(), do they? Regards, -- Atsushi Torikoshi NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: