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
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? |
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? |