Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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