Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> Consider an audit system where which columns end up in the audit log are
> controlled by issuing ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN type statements.
<blink>
I'd like to consider such a thing, but it seems like utter pie in the
sky. Do you really believe that elog() could know enough about what it's
printing to apply such a filter? Do you think elog() should be allowed
to do catalog accesses in order to find out what the filter conditions
should be (hint: no)? Perhaps you think that we don't ever need to emit
error messages before we've analyzed a query enough to figure out which
tables are involved? Let alone which columns? Let alone which literals
elsewhere in the query string might be somehow associated with those
columns?
I suggest that you should spend most of your meeting tomorrow tamping down
hard on the expectations of whoever you're speaking with.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
