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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html