| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: syslog_line_prefix |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 22:12:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4ABD4047.10908@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Having just sent two messages to the discussion about the wrong patch, I'll
>> apologize, and shut up now :)
>>
>
> No need to apologize --- this really is, and should be, all one
> conversation. I think the main problem I've got with applying either
> patch is that I don't believe we have consensus on the direction the
> logging code should go. Without that, it's a bad idea to accept
> incremental patches, even if they're arguably harmless by themselves.
>
Agreed. The discussion does have en element of /déjà vu,/ too. The the
whole idea behind log_line_prefix was to allow people to make easier and
better log splitting decisions after the fact.
Like you I'm wary of adding too much extra processing into the elog code.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-26 00:05:25 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-25 21:57:48 | Re: syslog_line_prefix |