> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, that makes sense. My only question is how many platforms _don't_ > > have syslog. If it is only NT and QNX, I think we can live with using > > it by default if it exists. > > There seems to be a certain amount of confusion here. The proposal at > hand was to make configure set up to *compile* the syslog support > whenever possible. Not to *use* syslog by default. Unless we change > the default postgresql.conf --- which I would be against --- we will > still log to stderr by default. > > Given that, I'm not sure that Peter's argument about losing > functionality is right; the analogy to readline support isn't exact. > Perhaps what we should do is (a) always build syslog support if > possible, and (b) at runtime, complain if syslog logging is requested > but we don't have it available.
Did we decide to compile in syslog support by default? I thought so. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
