Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
Date: 2004-07-20 19:37:41
Message-ID: 200407202137.41942.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> For logs I think pgsql_ is best because that filename is already
> going to be long, and I don't usually like dashes in file names.
> They look too much like arguments, but tarballs use them and it looks
> OK there, I guess.

I wasn't talking about what looks best, I was talking about current
practice for log files. From that you might be able to extrapolate
what other people have previously found to look best.

In any case, we're not using DOS and 12 inch monitors any more. File
names can be as long as we want.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-20 20:11:30 pg_config
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-20 19:00:22 Re: pg_dump --clean w/ <= 7.2 server