| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, David Arnold <dar(at)xoe(dot)solutions>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Adding json logging |
| Date: | 2018-04-14 21:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | 10502.1523739808@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-04-14 18:05:18 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
>> CSV is very poorly specified, which makes it at best complicated to
>> build correct parsing libraries. JSON, whatever gripes I have about
>> the format[1] is extremely well specified, and hence has excellent
>> parsing libraries.
> Worth to notice that useful json formats for logging also kinda don't
> follow standards. Either you end up with entire logfiles as one big
> array, which most libraries won't parse and makes logrotate etc really
> complicated, or you end up with some easy to parse format where newlines
> have non-standard record separator meaning.
Hmm .. that, actually, seems like a pretty serious objection. If the beef
with CSV is that it's poorly specified and inconsistently implemented
(which is surely true), then using some nonstandard variant of JSON
doesn't seem like it's going to lead to a big step forward.
"The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from."
(variously attributed to Hopper, Tanenbaum, and others)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-14 21:10:21 | Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-14 20:59:02 | Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so? |