From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tim Holloway <mtsinc(at)southeast(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging |
Date: | 1999-10-24 20:15:51 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9910242208450.377-100000@peter-e.yi.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 23, Tim Holloway mentioned:
> I think we have a consensus. Destroy and recreate logging data
> structures/tasks on receipt of suitable event.
>
> For simple things like log levels, though, I'd still like feedback on
> desirablility and feasibility of altering basic logging options though
> (authorized!) frontends. As a user, I get nervous when I have to
> thread my way past possibly-fragile unrelated items in a config file
> when I'm trying to do a panic diagnosis. As an administrator, I get
> even MORE nervous if one of the less careful people I know were to be
> entrusted with that task.
What about
SET LOGLEVEL TO <something>;
SET LOGDETAIL TO <something>;
or the like. You could use pg_shadow.usesuper as a security stipulation.
Using something like a signal to do this is probably overkill, especially
since there are hardly any left, and it's also infinitely less intuitive
and flexible.
-Peter
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-24 20:44:26 | Catalog version numbering added (committers READ THIS) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-10-24 18:57:51 | Re: [PATCHES] COMMENT ON patch |