Le 28/12/2010 01:53, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit : >> Le 27/12/2010 15:59, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Le 27/12/2010 10:47, Gilles Darold a écrit : >>>> [...] >>>> Here is the rewritten patch that add syslog support to PgPool with all >>>> your great suggestions applied. >>>> This patch has been created from the current cvs HEAD branch. >>> Thanks. There is a bug in it, that I fixed in the attached patch. Even >>> if you declare log_destination and syslog_ident as reloadable, it was >>> without effect because there was no code to handle opening or closing >>> syslog if they changed. >> Damn you're right, I just simply omit this part. Sorry for the >> additional work. >>> There is another thing that annoys me, but it isn't a bug. What is the >>> purpose of pool_config->logsyslog? is it just to avoid a strcmp? which >>> seems a poor optimization wrt having two variables with same meaning. >> No, this is a flag to delay PgPool logging to syslog only after the end >> of configuration file reading. The problem appears when PgPool is run in >> debug mode, during the configuration file it detect that log_destination >> is set to syslog so if you don't wait (or use a flag) it will try to >> write to syslog before the syslog connection is opened. >> >>>> This patch also modify the comment about logdir configuraion directive. >>>> >>>> "Logging directory" has been change into "PgPool status file logging >>>> directory" >>>> >>>> Feel free to apply or remove it. It just seems to me that 'logdir' => >>>> "Logging directory" is very confusing and false as this directive is >>>> only used to save the pgpool_status file. It will certainly be better to >>>> rename this directive, but for the moment just changing the comment help >>>> a lot for understanding and preserve backward compatibility. >>> I completely agree with you on that change. But I would much prefer to >>> see it applied as another patch rather than in this patch. They have two >>> different purposes, so they shouldn't be mixed. >> Ok, memorized: one purpose per patch. Please remove it and make an other >> one if you think it should be applied. >> >>> BTW, Tatsuo-san, Gilles and I have absolutely no idea if we should >>> change pool_config.c, pool_config.l, or both. We did both, but I would >>> really like to know which of these three possibilities is the good one. >>> Thanks. >> Yes this is because in cvs pool_config.c has not been fully regenerated >> from pool_config.l and some part of the regex patch have not been >> applied to pool_config.c > > I think you only need patches against pool_config.l. I will generate > pool_config.c from pool_config.l. >
Do you need another patch from us, or is the current enough for you? -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
