I added improvement for single commands.

I am somewhat uncertain about batch commands though, because I see in there are several tests verifying that parameters will always be logged as System.Object[]. So makes me wonder that was there a decision made not to log? But on the other hand, log state will still hold the actual values for each individual command in the batch. So we can leave it as is or also unwrap batch parameters to show actual values.

Let me know your thoughts!

One further idea is to convert all parameters to string (not just arrays and nulls). I'm also happy to go that direction, but seems like a bigger change and this is my first contribution, so don't know what is the policy. I can also create another PR if you prefer keeping this one small

Is there any way to improve the communication? We can potentially extend this change, but I'd need input from somebody with more experience with this project.

I searched if there are any contribution guidelines, project roadmaps or communication hub, but did not find anything, so I have to rely on what is happening here

@balazsmeszegeto , is it possible to add NpgsqlDbType to message (like EF Core does if logging is enabled)? I think that could be useful.

@AndrewZu1337 Certainly possible, but that might be out of scope. I'm happy to extend the scope though, just need approval from a maintainer

Any comments from reviewers? @roji @vonzshik

Anyone, please...?

I'm very sorry for the wait. I actually was meaning to look at all open pr's we had (like for the last few months), but then real life stuff happened and I'm only now started to have some free time. Overall your pr looks fine, just a few minor things to discuss.

Thanks for the feedback. I've implemented your suggestions (and extended the test)

Is something required from me?

Is something required from me?

Don't think so, just other members of the team busy with other stuff (@roji is mostly working on docs for EFCore/EFCore.pg at the moment). Worst case scenario I'll merge it on my own just before the release.
Though you probably could rebase on the latest main just to make it a bit easier to merge.

@balazsmeszegeto apologies from me as well that this didn't receive more attention earlier.

In the interest of getting this into the 9.0 release (on Tuesday), I've gone ahead and done some cleanup and pushed a commit to this PR - it's mainly various insignificant code cleanup, and an extraction of all logging tests to their own test suite.

One thing I did change was the logging distinction between DBNull (which this PR logged as NULL) and null (which it logged as (null)); I don't think the distinction between these two is relevant in this context (it isn't in most others), so I changed both to simply log NULL. If there's some specific reason we should be logging them differently let me know.

@vonzshik can I get a quick review of my changes?

Okay, thanks