| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | depesz <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
| Date: | 2007-12-06 21:02:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4758635D.4080008@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> I can't see any very good reason for text logs to have different
>> content from CSV logs.
>>
>
> Well, if we want to cram all that stuff in there, how shall we do it?
> It seems wrong to put all those lines into one text field, but I'm
> not sure I want to add six more text fields to the CSV format
> either. Thoughts?
>
>
>
Really? Six? In any case, would that be so bad? It would mean six extra
commas per line in the log file, and nothing much in the log table
unless there were content in those fields.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-12-06 21:27:44 | Re: BUG #3803: Error while sending request to database |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-06 18:18:51 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-06 22:03:48 | "distributed checkpoint" |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-12-06 19:34:42 | Re: Better default_statistics_target |