Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: depesz <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs
Date: 2007-12-06 21:02:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I can't see any very good reason for text logs to have different 
>> content from CSV logs.
> Well, if we want to cram all that stuff in there, how shall we do it?
> It seems wrong to put all those lines into one text field, but I'm
> not sure I want to add six more text fields to the CSV format
> either.  Thoughts?

Really? Six? In any case, would that be so bad? It would mean six extra 
commas per line in the log file, and nothing much in the log table 
unless there were content in those fields.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-12-06 22:03:48
Subject: "distributed checkpoint"
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-12-06 19:34:42
Subject: Re: Better default_statistics_target

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2007-12-06 21:27:44
Subject: Re: BUG #3803: Error while sending request to database
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-12-06 18:18:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group