Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> It does print it. In fact the example I gave below which is from a
> >> real trace shows it being printed. It is just printed after the error
> >> message rather than before.
> >>
> >> You solution doesn't appear to address the problem of what to do if
> >> they ask for only DDL and one of those generates a syntax error.
> >
> > My comment was that if they type "UP8ATE", and it is a syntax error, we
> > have no way to know if it was a DDL or not, so we don't print it.
> >
> > My idea was to take log_statement, and instead of true/false, have it
> > be all, ddl, mod, or off/none/false(?). You keep the existing test for
> > log_statement where it is, but test for 'all' now, and after parse, you
> > check for ddl or mod, and print in those cases if the tag matches.
> >
> > If they want ddl and errors, they can use log_min_error_statement to
> > see just statement error, and set log_statement accordingly.
> >
>
> The problem is that you are anticipating my solution for the selectivity
> issue before I have written or submitted it. My question was different and
> narrower - namely will the patch I sent, as it stands, and forgetting the
> selectivity issue for the moment, break anything?
>
> When I actually send in a patch to implement statement log selectivity, I
> will give you free license to pull it to bits to your heart's content.
Well, if that is the question, then I don't want to reorder the query
printout from the error.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073