Re: change name of redirect_stderr?

"Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/15/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> For example, "log_line_prefix" is misnamed under this rule, and ought to
>> be "logging_line_prefix". Similarly, redirect_stderr would become
>> "logging_something" --- I'd prefer "logging_start_collector" but could
>> live with "logging_collector" (or maybe "logging_use_collector"?)

> The consistent prefix idea sounds good; does "logging_enable" jive
> with your proposal?

I dislike it. I claim that logging to plain stderr (without the
syslogger process) is still logging. Logging to syslog (which also
doen't need the syslogger process) is *definitely* logging. Something
named "logging_enable" would suggest to the normal person that without
it turned on, you'll get *nothing*.

I'm not wedded to "collector" per se, but you really cannot escape the
fact that there is one more concept in here than you wish to admit.
I think that reflecting the existence of a collector process in the GUC
names makes things clearer, not less clear.

regards, tom lane