Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)