Re: change name of redirect_stderr?

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> On 8/15/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, "log_line_prefix" is misnamed under this rule, and ought to
>>> be "logging_line_prefix". Similarly, redirect_stderr would become
>>> "logging_something" --- I'd prefer "logging_start_collector" but could
>>> live with "logging_collector" (or maybe "logging_use_collector"?)
>>>
>
>
>> The consistent prefix idea sounds good; does "logging_enable" jive
>> with your proposal?
>>
>
> I dislike it. I claim that logging to plain stderr (without the
> syslogger process) is still logging. Logging to syslog (which also
> doen't need the syslogger process) is *definitely* logging. Something
> named "logging_enable" would suggest to the normal person that without
> it turned on, you'll get *nothing*.
>
> I'm not wedded to "collector" per se, but you really cannot escape the
> fact that there is one more concept in here than you wish to admit.
> I think that reflecting the existence of a collector process in the GUC
> names makes things clearer, not less clear.
>
>
>

Logging_collector won the day. I have just committed CSVlogs with that
change.

cheers

andrew