Re: Set log_line_prefix and application name in test drivers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Set log_line_prefix and application name in test drivers
Date: 2016-09-28 17:45:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmobB-igLrjfH+zfmpY00ysAseCBxcRukjyhdneamyebfYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> writes:
>>> I've always been wondering why we don't set a log_line_prefix by
>>> default.
>>
>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
>> bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we're
>> having converging on a default for the regression tests, which are
>> a far narrower use-case than "everybody".
>
> Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is
> going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't
> all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do
> better than what we've got now. +1 for trying.

Is there any chance we can move forward here, or is this effort doomed for now?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-09-28 17:46:54 Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-09-28 17:43:51 Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan