Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Date: 2000-05-06 05:05:58
Message-ID: 9265.957589558@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> (BTW is it really possible for postmaster to remember its process
> priority?)

No, but a site might have a startup script that nice's the postmaster
to a desired priority.

> BTW, currently the best way to get logs from postmaster woul be
> compiling it with USE_SYSLOG (why is this not enabled by configure?),

Good question. Before we standardize on that, however, some testing
might be in order. I haven't tried stuffing multimegabyte querytree
dumps into syslog ... will it work? On how many platforms? The syslog
applications I've seen never write more than a hundred or so characters
per log entry, so I'm a tad nervous about assuming that we will get
reasonable behavior for large messages...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-05-06 05:47:01 Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords.
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2000-05-06 03:29:15 Re: --enable-locale and SET command ...