Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRerRucN5fcF7Aw1mR_2PWuGHBTcZVfzoHBZTp7ZK0P5-A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Christoph Berg wrote: >> Re: Thomas Munro 2017-08-10 <CAEepm=09jnV7hK5rTxPp816bMuve7dJGbjtEcjeXrhAELHFxqw@mail.gmail.com> >> > > Agreed. Here's a version that skips those useless detail messages >> > > using a coding pattern I found elsewhere. >> > >> > Rebased after bf6b9e94. >> >> > message ? errdetail("Diagnostic message: %s", message) : 0)); >> >> "Diagnostic message" doesn't really mean anything, and printing >> "DETAIL: Diagnostic message: <something>" seems redundant to me. Maybe >> drop that prefix? It should be clear from the context that this is a >> message from the LDAP layer. > > I think making it visible that the message comes from LDAP (rather than > Postgres or anything else) is valuable. How about this? > > LOG: could not start LDAP TLS session: Protocol error > DETAIL: LDAP diagnostics: unsupported extended operation. > +1, pretty neat. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: