Re: Log rotation

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log rotation
Date: 2004-03-12 18:38:32
Message-ID: 20040312183832.GA8030@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 13:17:50 -0500,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> > Are you suggesting the that postgres project develop their own logger
> > rather than people just using one that has already been developed
> > by some other group?
>
> The problem from the point of view of Red Hat is to not introduce a
> dependency from the Postgres RPM to the Apache RPM ... this is no
> problem for people who don't mind hand-customizing their setup, but
> it is a problem if you want it to be part of the out-of-the-box setup.

I can see their problem with making a dependency to all of apache or including
multilog in their distribution. But they probably could include something
that is only a logger either using some project that is only a logger or
splitting out the logger that is bundled with apache. Then it wouldn't
be unreasonable to make a dependency for postgres requiring that logging
rpm. Other services could also make use of this logging package as well.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-03-12 18:41:39 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-03-12 18:38:22 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.