Tom Lane wrote:
> The other little problem (which is the reason we like the stderr
> approach in the first place) is that not all the stderr output we want
> to capture comes from code under our control. This may not be a huge
> problem in production situations, since the main issue in my experience
> is being able to capture dynamic-linker messages when shlib loading fails.
> But it is a stumbling block in the way of any proposals that involve
> having a more structured protocol for the stuff going down the wire :-(
I don't think that need worry us about CSV output - AFAICS it's
redirected quite separately from stderr - more like syslog really, so
the CSV output *is* all from code under our control.
I'm pondering some very simple method of signalling the end of a CSV
line, like appending a null byte (which we would of course strip out, so
it would never appear on the file), and only allowing a CSV log rotation
if we are on a boundary.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-06-02 02:05:32|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements|
|Previous:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2007-06-02 00:13:54|
|Subject: Re: To all the pgsql developers..Have a look at the operators proposed by me in my research paper.|