From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tim Holloway <mtsinc(at)leading(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) |
Date: | 1999-10-24 17:19:41 |
Message-ID: | 3747.940785581@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Why not do something similar to what we are doing with pg_shadow? If I
> remember the logic right, when you update pg_shadow, one ofits "steps" is
> to dump it to a text file so that postmaster can read it?
I thought about suggesting that, but IIRC the pg_shadow stuff doesn't
really *work* very well --- CREATE USER and friends know that they
are supposed to dump the table to a textfile after modifying it,
but heaven help you if you try poking pg_shadow with vanilla SQL
commands. And I bet aborting a transaction after it does a CREATE USER
doesn't undo the changes to the flat file, either.
So, unless someone is feeling inspired to go rework the way the pg_shadow
stuff is handled, I don't think it's a good model to emulate.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Holloway | 1999-10-24 17:48:20 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (long message) |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-10-24 17:12:27 | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) |