Re: Add support for logging the current role

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add support for logging the current role
Date: 2011-02-15 15:45:04
Message-ID: AANLkTiko7h1LSxjt9AGgYjYBABo+Eog=5gm2UKOcAQt0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>>> The payoff
>>> (getting %U) seems quite out of proportion to the potential downsides
>>> of making a change of this type at this late date.
>
>> I'd be happy to go back to the original patch/idea of just the simple
>> addition of %U as an option for log_line_prefix.  I'd be quite
>> frustrated to not have *any* way to log the current role in 9.1.  I
>> don't think anyone is going to be too bent out of shape that we can't do
>> it with CSV initially, so long as we agree that we'll try and add that
>> for 9.2.
>
> Given that this has been like this right along, I don't see why it's
> all that urgent to force a half-baked solution into 9.1.  I'm also
> concerned that if we do do that, you'll lose motivation to work on
> cleaning it up for 9.2 ;-)

Trying to arm-twist people into working on A before we're willing to
give them B doesn't necessary serve us very well. I'd rather leave
the problem of making the CSV format more flexible to someone who is
really motivated to work on *that problem*, whether that person ends
up being Stephen or not.

Just my $0.02.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-02-15 15:45:41 Re: pageinspect's infomask and infomask2 as smallint
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-15 15:42:00 Re: pageinspect's infomask and infomask2 as smallint