From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: serverlog function (log_destination file) |
Date: | 2004-06-07 14:31:42 |
Message-ID: | 3049.1086618702@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> ... what about adding a GUC variable that can be used to specify an
> amount of shared memory to use as a fifo area in which a copy of the log
> output is stored for return to clients that might want it (accessing it
> via internal functions)?
No, that's a nonstarter, because having the postmaster log into shared
memory means that the postmaster probably goes down too anytime a
backend crashes. The shared area would have to have a mutual-exclusion
lock, and we definitely do not want the postmaster participating in any
lock protocols.
If I were trying to solve Andreas' problem, I'd pipe stderr to some
program that stores recent log output in a file that I know the location
of and can read from the hypothetical log-grabber function. Actually I
don't see that there's any need to involve Postgres itself in this issue
at all --- seems like the only agreement needed is between the GUI and
the postmaster launching script about where the log file is.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-06-07 14:34:59 | Re: serverlog function |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-07 14:07:39 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Failures with windows port |