From: | David Arnold <dar(at)xoe(dot)solutions> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Adding json logging |
Date: | 2018-04-14 16:03:22 |
Message-ID: | CAH6vsWJUwj1OSNNZcFan_wuR_6nEZ_Mcva5B=_iC6AmT6zdXYg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV.
Under common paradigms you are right, but if we talk of line-by-line
streaming with subsequent processing, then it's a show stopper. Of course,
some log aggregators have buffers for that and can do Multiline parsing on
that buffer, but
1. Not all log aggregators support it
2. Building a parser which reliably detects Multiline logs AND is easy on
resources is probably not something a normal person can achieve quickly.
So normally CSV is fine but for log streaming it's not the best, nor the
most standard compliant way.
El sáb., 14 abr. 2018, 10:51 a.m., Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escribió:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > I think a suite of json_to_* utilities would be a good bit more
> > helpful in this regard than changing our human-eye-consumable logs. We
> > already have human-eye-consumable logs by default. What we don't
> > have, and increasingly do want, is a log format that's really easy on
> > machines.
>
> I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2018-04-14 16:05:18 | Re: Proposal: Adding json logging |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-04-14 15:55:50 | Re: partitioning code reorganization |