| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: syslog by default? |
| Date: | 2001-11-05 16:01:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200111051601.fA5G1pj21656@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, that makes sense. My only question is how many platforms _don't_
> > have syslog. If it is only NT and QNX, I think we can live with using
> > it by default if it exists.
>
> There seems to be a certain amount of confusion here. The proposal at
> hand was to make configure set up to *compile* the syslog support
> whenever possible. Not to *use* syslog by default. Unless we change
> the default postgresql.conf --- which I would be against --- we will
> still log to stderr by default.
>
> Given that, I'm not sure that Peter's argument about losing
> functionality is right; the analogy to readline support isn't exact.
> Perhaps what we should do is (a) always build syslog support if
> possible, and (b) at runtime, complain if syslog logging is requested
> but we don't have it available.
Is this idea dead for 7.2? Should I add it to the TODO list?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-05 16:17:15 | Re: Storage Location Patch Proposal for V7.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-05 15:43:57 | Re: Beta going well |