Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, Tom please go ahead with the patch.
Done.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > > That sounds excellent - I hadn't realised that this workaround would be
> > > possible, and indeed with this in place that will provide even better
> > > control over the facility.
> >
> > OK, here is one vote for the ALTER USER/remove USERLIMIT croud, and you
> > were
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 23:05 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew McMillan wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > When tracking down gnarly problems in heavily multi-user applications
>
Andrew McMillan wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > When tracking down gnarly problems in heavily multi-user applications
> > > enabling higher log levels at selective points has the potent
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When tracking down gnarly problems in heavily multi-user applications
> > enabling higher log levels at selective points has the potential to help
> > _a lot_ with diagnostic detail, without smother
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Would that mean I wouldn't be able to change the logging level on the fly at
> > all?
>
> I would think you'd still be able to do it through a security definer
> wrapper function owned by a superuser.
Oh yeah, well that would be sufficient for my pu
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd like to propose that we get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT category and
>> convert all the variables in it to plain SUSET.
> Would that mean I wouldn't be able to change the logging level on the fly at
> all?
No, it woul
Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When tracking down gnarly problems in heavily multi-user applications
> enabling higher log levels at selective points has the potential to help
> _a lot_ with diagnostic detail, without smothering you in _every_
> detail.
Sure. As I pointed out in th
On Tue, 10 Nov 2004, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to propose that we get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT category and
> > convert all the variables in it to plain SUSET. In my mind, USERLIMIT
> > is a failed experiment: it's way too complicated, and it still do
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 17:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What the USERLIMIT code tries to do is allow non-superusers to
> "increase" but not "decrease" the logging verbosity for their sessions
> only. (For instance, a non-superuser could turn log_duration on, but
> can't turn it off if the DBA has
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to propose that we get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT category and
> > convert all the variables in it to plain SUSET. In my mind, USERLIMIT
> > is a failed experiment: it's way too complicated, and it still doesn't
> > do quite w
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to propose that we get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT category and
> convert all the variables in it to plain SUSET. In my mind, USERLIMIT
> is a failed experiment: it's way too complicated, and it still doesn't
> do quite what it was intended to do, becau
I'd like to propose that we get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT category and
convert all the variables in it to plain SUSET. In my mind, USERLIMIT
is a failed experiment: it's way too complicated, and it still doesn't
do quite what it was intended to do, because there are times when it
can't check whether
13 matches
Mail list logo
