In response to "Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/12/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Usually people don't want th query unless they ask for it. One nify
> > trick would be to print the query as DETAIL unless they are already
> > logging queries, but that just seems too
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/12/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (2) there is already a generalized solution to this, it's called
>> log_min_error_statement.
> I didn't think of that when posting my message but Bruce seems to say
> that we can't use it in this case
On 1/12/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not what I had in mind. I was asking if the text of the query
> was available when logging the temp file usage. If so it could be good
> to add a DETAIL line with it directly and systematically w
On 1/12/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Usually people don't want th query unless they ask for it. One nify
trick would be to print the query as DETAIL unless they are already
logging queries, but that just seems too complex. If you want the
query, why not just log them all?
Beca
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not what I had in mind. I was asking if the text of the query
> was available when logging the temp file usage. If so it could be good
> to add a DETAIL line with it directly and systematically when logging
> the temp file usage.
(1) you could
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your answer.
On 1/12/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have the ability to conditionally print statements based on error
level, but LOG isn't a valid level for log_min_error_statement.
We could add a parameter that few people would use, but the right way to
d
