Re: Operation log for major operations

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operation log for major operations
Date: 2023-03-02 18:37:03
Message-ID: 20230302183703.GH4268@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 08:57:43PM +0300, Dmitry Koval wrote:
> These changes did not interest the community. It was expected (topic is very
> specifiс: vendor's technical support). So no sense to distract developers

Actually, I think there is interest, but it has to be phrased in a
limited sense to go into the control file.

In November, I referenced 2 threads, but I think you misunderstood one
of them. If you skim the first couple mails, you'll find a discussion
about recording crash information in the control file.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/666c2599a07addea00ae2d0af96192def8441974.camel%40j-davis.com

It's come up several times now, and there seems to be ample support for
adding some limited information.

But a "log" which might exceed a few dozen bytes (now or later), that's
inconsistent with the pre-existing purpose served by pg_control.

--
Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais 2023-03-02 18:37:27 Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-03-02 18:35:27 Re: Add SHELL_EXIT_CODE to psql