From: | Étienne BERSAC <etienne(dot)bersac(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: logfmt and application_context |
Date: | 2023-09-27 11:57:50 |
Message-ID: | 55e63d664fb584c28c770fcc2c62609f602ba051.camel@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Le mercredi 27 septembre 2023 à 10:14 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson a écrit :
> Being a common format in ingestion tools makes it interesting though, but I
> wonder if those tools aren't alreday supporting CSV such that adding logfmt
> won't move the compatibility markers much?
Compared to CSV, logfmt has explicit named fields. This helps tools to
apply generic rules like : ok this is pid, this is timestamp, etc.
without any configuration. Loki and Grafana indexes a subset of known
fields. This is harder to achieve with a bunch a semi-colon separated
values.
Compared to JSON, logfmt is terser and easier for human eyes and
fingers.
This is why I think logfmt for PostgreSQL could be a good option.
Regards,
Étienne
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shveta malik | 2023-09-27 12:03:19 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2023-09-27 11:55:59 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |