Re: [PATCHES] log_line_info
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] log_line_info |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 40416E2F.8040106@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] log_line_info (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >>>Nice. Only two comments --- does this mean we should remove log_pid? >>>Seems it is now duplicate functionality. Is that the only duplication? >>>Also, I don't see any documention changes in the patch, but I assume you >>>will work on that before final. >>> >>> >>> >>I will do docs. We could sensibly get rid of log_pid and log_timestamp >>with my latest patch. I would also suggest getting rid of >>log_source_port, since there really isn't any reason *not* to log the >>source port. Do you want me to make those changes in my patch? Or I can >>leave them for now and we can get rid of them when everyone is happy. >> >> > >I agree, but let's make it a separate patch. > >Oh, I think we still need log_timestamp for postmaster-generated lines, >no? What does log_line_info output for postmaster-generated logs? > I have fixed the postmaster lines issue. There is a new escape %X that says "postmaster and friends stop here". Example, with log_timestamp = false and log_pid = false and log_line_info = '%T [%P] %X %U@%D(%C:%S) %R %I line:%L ' : 2004-02-28 20:24:49 [11154] LOG: database system was shut down at 2004-02-28 20:24:20 EST 2004-02-28 20:24:49 [11154] LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/9D1874 2004-02-28 20:24:49 [11154] LOG: redo record is at 0/9D1874; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE 2004-02-28 20:24:49 [11154] LOG: next transaction ID: 467; next OID: 17145 2004-02-28 20:24:49 [11154] LOG: database system is ready 2004-02-28 20:25:30 [11158] [unknown]@[unknown](40413f8a.2b96:2004-02-28 20:25:30) line:1 LOG: connection received: host=alphonso port=45621 2004-02-28 20:25:30 [11158] andrew@blurflx(40413f8a.2b96:2004-02-28 20:25:30) alphonso:45621 authentication line:2 LOG: connection authorized: user=andrew database=blurflx 2004-02-28 20:25:34 [11158] andrew@blurflx(40413f8a.2b96:2004-02-28 20:25:30) alphonso:45621 idle line:3 LOG: statement: SELECT n.nspname as "Schema", c.relname as "Name", CASE c.relkind WHEN 'r' THEN 'table' WHEN 'v' THEN 'view' WHEN 'i' THEN 'index' WHEN 'S' THEN 'sequence' WHEN 's' THEN 'special' END as "Type", u.usename as "Owner", c2.relname as "Table" FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c JOIN pg_catalog.pg_indexi ON i.indexrelid = c.oid JOIN pg_catalog.pg_class c2 ON i.indrelid = c2.oid LEFTJOIN pg_catalog.pg_user u ON u.usesysid = c.relowner LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_namespace n ON n.oid = c.relnamespace WHERE c.relkind IN ('i','') AND n.nspname NOT IN ('pg_catalog', 'pg_toast') ANDpg_catalog.pg_table_is_visible(c.oid) ORDER BY 1,2; 2004-02-28 20:25:38 [11158] andrew@blurflx(40413f8a.2b96:2004-02-28 20:25:30) alphonso:45621 idle line:4 LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:08.50 user=andrew database=blurflx host=alphonso:45621 2004-02-28 20:25:44 [11149] LOG: received smart shutdown request 2004-02-28 20:25:44 [11170] LOG: shutting down 2004-02-28 20:25:46 [11170] LOG: database system is shut down > >Also, should we call the option just log_line? Is that clearer, or >log_line_prefix? > > I floated the name log_line_info a while back and noone objected. I don't think "log_line" is any clearer - quite the contrary IMNSHO. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: