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
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 |