Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements
Date: 2007-02-19 18:21:00
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10702191021t181d35fem19748dc4ec31a107@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On 2/19/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> If it adds necessary context then it clear does not have "the same
> behavior",

I mean log_line_prefix behaviour is the same. The other information
are syslog specific.

> I'd propose adding a log_entry_prefix separate from log_line_prefix; the
> entry prefix would contain most of the stuff, and log_line_prefix would
> be a minimal thing intended to be put in front of each _line_, so the
> example you show above could be

It could be a good idea.
It won't make me use stderr output but it will allow other people to
do so without any disadvantage :).

> Really, prefixing with a tab does not strike me as a great idea
> precisely because it's ambiguous.

Sure.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2007-02-19 18:30:21 Re: pg_proc without oid?
Previous Message David Fetter 2007-02-19 18:17:11 Re: wishlist items ..

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-02-19 18:58:14 Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-02-19 17:51:42 Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements