Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
Date: 2004-07-20 19:37:41
Message-ID: 200407202137.41942.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> For logs I think pgsql_ is best because that filename is already
> going to be long, and I don't usually like dashes in file names. 
> They look too much like arguments, but tarballs use them and it looks
> OK there, I guess.

I wasn't talking about what looks best, I was talking about current 
practice for log files.  From that you might be able to extrapolate 
what other people have previously found to look best.

In any case, we're not using DOS and 12 inch monitors any more.  File 
names can be as long as we want.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-07-20 20:11:30
Subject: pg_config
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-07-20 19:00:22
Subject: Re: pg_dump --clean w/ <= 7.2 server

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group