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
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
