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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-12-06 22:03:48|
|Subject: "distributed checkpoint"|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-12-06 19:34:42|
|Subject: Re: Better default_statistics_target|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2007-12-06 21:27:44|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3803: Error while sending request to database|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-12-06 18:18:51|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |