From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation |
Date: | 2012-03-08 15:19:05 |
Message-ID: | 11176.1331219945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:34:53AM -0500, A.M. wrote:
>> It looks like the patch will overwrite the logs in the current working
>> directory, for example, if pg_upgrade is run twice in the same place. Is
>> that intentional? I had imagined that the logs would have been dumped in
> Yes. I was afraid that continually appending to a log file on every run
> would be too confusing. I could do only appends, or number the log
> files, that those seemed confusing.
Use one (set of) files, and always append, but at the beginning of each
run print "\npg_upgrade starting at [timestamp]\n\n". Should make it
reasonably clear, while not losing information.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2012-03-08 15:19:42 | Re: sortsupport for text |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2012-03-08 15:11:37 | Re: psql COPY vs. ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK, multi-command strings |