Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I also agree with Tom's comments that we don't have consensus on where
> this should go. I think it would help a lot if someone put together a
> design document (perhaps on the wiki) and tried to enumerate at a high
> level the logging requirements that aren't being satisfied by the
> current system. Then we could have a conversation about the right way
> to address them. By writing the code first, I think we're putting the
> cart before the horse.
+1 ... that seems like a much more sensible way to proceed than
submitting patches without prior discussion.
regards, tom lane