Ryan Bloom wrote:
> 
> I would.  But I have a very good reason.  We already have the same
> basic idea, but done a bit safer.  Basically, we have a log_error hook,
> but it is run at the end of log_error_core, so that we are sure that we
> always get the error in the error_log, even if we don't get it anyplace
> else.  There are some minor tweaks that should be made to the
> current hook, because right now it actually sends out too much
> information, like the timestamp.  But, it should handle what George wants
> just fine.

Heh! Good point! When did that go in?

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Reply via email to