Re: serverlog rotation/functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: serverlog rotation/functions
Date: 2004-07-13 21:36:46
Message-ID: 18934.1089754606@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> However, looking at the issue of backends all reloading their
> postgresql.conf files at different times and sending output to different
> files, I wonder if it would be best to create a log process and have
> each backend connect to that. That way, all the logging happens in one
> process.

That was something that bothered me too. I think in the patch as given,
the GUC parameter determining the logfile name would have to be
PGC_POSTMASTER, ie, you could not change it on the fly because the
backends wouldn't all switch together. There may be some finer-grain
timing issues as well.

On the whole I think that capturing all the backends' stderr via a pipe
and doing the file rotation in a single downstream process is a *much*
cleaner solution. However, I've been saying that right along and
haven't been listened to...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2004-07-13 21:40:14 Re: Release planning (was: Re: Status report)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-13 21:27:07 Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-13 21:42:57 Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-13 21:27:07 Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?