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
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
