A pet annoyance with the Linux RPMs... They are shipped with syslog
enabled and postmaster sdtout/stderr redirected to /dev/null. So
unless the user specifically sets up the needed info in
/etc/syslog.conf then they never hear a squeak from PostgreSQL!
I'm by no means an RPM expert, but judging by the installation of
other packages this hopefully can be handled automatically. A suitable
/etc/logrotate.d/postgresql file could be in the RPM and In the
post-install script the following rough steps would take place:
1. Check if /var/log/postgresql is in /etc/syslog.conf, if not add
2. Restart syslogd:
Obviously there is the added issue of cross distribution file
locations (I'm coming from a Redhat perspective here) - what does the
LSB/FSH say about syslog.conf and logrotate files? Guess i need to
Lamar, would this be easy to do for the RPMs? If you could point me in
the right direction I could take a look...
Thanks, Lee Kindness.
Tom Lane writes:
> Rudolf Potucek <potucek(at)ucalgary(dot)ca> writes:
> > Oct 4 14:05:45 antimony3 postgresql: Starting postgresql service:
> > failed
> > Maybe, just maybe, it would be nice if the server croaked a bit more
> > vebously?
> The postmaster croaks as verbosely as it can. I'll bet lunch that your
> system's startup script is redirecting the postmaster's stderr to
> /dev/null (or using the -S switch which has the same effect). If so,
> we are not the people to complain to ...
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Russ Freeman||Date: 2002-10-16 00:40:12|
|Subject: Help - can't fix: "recreate_mmaps_after_fork_failed" error|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-10-07 14:49:32|
|Subject: Re: postmaster will not start with stale lockfile but not report why |
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-10-07 19:23:21|
|Subject: Re: Passing character data to C function|
|Previous:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2002-10-07 15:17:14|
|Subject: Re: Query optimizer bug|