From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tim Holloway <mtsinc(at)southeast(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Aaron J(dot) Seigo" <aaron(at)gtv(dot)ca>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tim Holloway <mtsinc(at)leading(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) |
Date: | 1999-10-24 17:12:27 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.9910241410580.30583-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Why not do something similar to what we are doing with pg_shadow? If I
remember the logic right, when you update pg_shadow, one ofits "steps" is
to dump it to a text file so that postmaster can read it? this should
make it easy for one user/database to have one logging set, while another
doesn' have it set at all...and should make it so that each database
*should* theoretically log to different files/mechanisms?
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Tim Holloway wrote:
>
>
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >
> > > > There MUST exist a way to alter the logging level on-the-fly;
> > > > IMHO this is a rock bottom, non negotiable requirement.
> > >
> > > whilst i don't think this is MUST, it is EXTREMELY desirable and would make the
> > > logging actually useful for large installations =)
> >
> > Let's re-iterate Tom here: There MUST exist a way ... someone *MUST* be
> > able to change their configuration without having to physically stop/start
> > the server to affect the changes ...
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> > Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> > primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
> I think we have a consensus. Destroy and recreate logging
> data structures/tasks on receipt of
> suitable event.
>
> For simple things like log levels, though, I'd still like
> feedback on
> desirablility and feasibility of altering basic logging
> options though
> (authorized!) frontends. As a user, I get nervous when I
> have to thread
> my way past possibly-fragile unrelated items in a config
> file when I'm trying
> to do a panic diagnosis. As an administrator, I get even
> MORE nervous if one
> of the less careful people I know were to be entrusted with
> that task.
>
> Another possible mode of controlling what's logged is to
> assign mask bits to various
> classes of messaages and allow the administrator to alter
> the filter mask.
> Although, in truth, the channel design is pretty much the
> same thing.
>
> Tim Holloway
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-24 17:19:41 | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-24 16:15:32 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (long message) |