Re: Ready for Beta ... ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Ready for Beta ... ?
Date: 2004-08-08 20:35:23
Message-ID: 21557.1091997323@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Hate to ask, but can someone summarize what it is that is being
> "discussed" here? Andreas' post about 'size triggering' is what drew my
> eye, but I think I missed the central point :(

The question is whether the new syslogger subprocess has enough features
or not ;-). What it's got is two parameters: switch to a new log file
at least every N minutes, and at least every N kilobytes of log output.
Bruce and I think that's enough. Andreas wants database users to be
able to force it to switch to a new log file on demand.

I don't think the latter is a particularly good idea for a number of
reasons, but probably the main one is that I don't think users should be
directly fooling with the server logs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2004-08-08 20:48:20 Re: Ready for Beta ... ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-08-08 20:17:40 pgsql-server: Make listen_addresses be a comma-separated list instead of