MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 19:12:39 +0900
From: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: dilipbalaut@gmail.com, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALj2ACXpvVeLstnNG1Oris0VpxbSdLNdh_r-v6YxTEY5vcDHAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf8501bcd95ba4d727cbba886ba9eea8@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAFiTN-vE4Q6=bJ-n9hNz8qwkaw2NK1scNC5LrSFkREex+XymLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXDiOhAdXks_w2b5NGg=7_K27Lx1Gau_iQnxGBCNkSMnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXpvVeLstnNG1Oris0VpxbSdLNdh_r-v6YxTEY5vcDHAA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <7c80e4a2d41232eefcdb418c70c4a1a1@oss.nttdata.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7c80e4a2d41232eefcdb418c70c4a1a1%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-05-13 18:36, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:57 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for the idea.  I did not read the complete patch but while reading
>> > through the patch, I noticed that you using elevel as LOG for printing
>> > the stack trace.  But I think the backend whose pid you have passed,
>> > the connected client to that backend might not have superuser
>> > privileges and if you use elevel LOG then that message will be sent to
>> > that connected client as well and I don't think that is secure.  So
>> > can we use LOG_SERVER_ONLY so that we can prevent
>> > it from sending to the client.
>> 
>> True, we should use LOG_SERVER_ONLY and not send any logs to the 
>> client.

Thanks, agree with changing it to LOG_SERVER_ONLY.

> I further tend to think that, is it correct to log queries with LOG
> level when log_statement GUC is set? Or should it also be
> LOG_SERVER_ONLY?

I feel it's OK to log with LOG_SERVER_ONLY since the log from
log_statement GUC would be printed already and independently.
ISTM people don't expect to log_statement GUC works even on
pg_log_current_plan(), do they?


Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION