Re: COPYable logs status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPYable logs status
Date: 2007-06-09 13:46:41
Message-ID: 15557.1181396801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We *have* a log-writing process. The problem is in getting the data to it.

> Remember the imessages approach I'm using for Postgres-R? It passes
> messages around using shared memory and signals the receiver on incoming
> data. It's not perfect, sure, but it's a general solution to a common
> problem.

Uh-huh. And how will you get libc's dynamic-link code to buy into
issuing link error messages this way? Not to mention every other bit
of code that might get linked into the backend?

Trapping what comes out of stderr is simply too useful a behavior to lose.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-09 13:49:29 Re: COPYable logs status
Previous Message Lukas Kahwe Smith 2007-06-09 12:11:42 Re: Using the GPU

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-09 13:49:29 Re: COPYable logs status
Previous Message Markus Schiltknecht 2007-06-09 10:08:59 Re: COPYable logs status