Robert Haas wrote:
Suggested patch attached.
I have committed your patch.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 05:23:53 Tom Lane wrote:
>> > However, since there's no standard strftime escape for epoch,
>> > Robert's proposal to rip out the functionality would break any existing
>> > code that st
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 05:23:53 Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, since there's no standard strftime escape for epoch,
> > Robert's proposal to rip out the functionality would break any existing
> > code that still depends on this formatting option.
>
> If it came down t
> If it came down to this, then I'd say rip it out. Naming log files by epoch
> isn't exactly a user-friendly practice anyway, and there are equivalent but
> more readable formatting options available.
There are other alternatives but they're all ugly. For example, we
could make %0 (or some sequ
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 18:37 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 05:23:53 Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, since there's no standard strftime escape for epoch,
> > Robert's proposal to rip out the functionality would break any existing
> > code that still depends on this format
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 05:23:53 Tom Lane wrote:
> However, since there's no standard strftime escape for epoch,
> Robert's proposal to rip out the functionality would break any existing
> code that still depends on this formatting option.
If it came down to this, then I'd say rip it out. Na
> However, since there's no standard strftime escape for epoch,
> Robert's proposal to rip out the functionality would break any existing
> code that still depends on this formatting option. I can't say that
> there is any, but by the same token he can't say there isn't.
Absolutely - so the quest
Andrew,
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Yes, logrotate will happily call external applications. Maybe I'm
>> missing something, but obviously if PG can't be configured with a fixed
>> filename, pg_rotate_logfile() doesn't help the situation.
>
> I should th
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I'm not sure what postgres does if the filename contains %% as the only
> escape, although that's would be a fairly ugly hack.
Yes, any %-escape is enough to disable the addition of the timestamp.
Looking back at the archives, I believe the real reason it's like this
is
Stephen Frost wrote:
Surely a good log rotator allows a custom rotation action (in this case,
connecting to postgres and calling 'select pg_rotate_logfile()' )
Yes, logrotate will happily call external applications. Maybe I'm
missing something, but obviously if PG can't be configured w
Andrew,
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> Then Debian is (surprise!) not doing the smartest thing.
As Gregory pointed out, Debian is doing it for some very good reasons,
and is doing it the best it can. Also, I have a huge amount of respect
for Martin Pitt (the Debian maintainer),
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> I have perfectly good log rotation utility that exists on my OS. (yes I
>> am aware of the possibility of losing a log entry when using logrotate).
>
> You might think you do, but it won't work with PG; external rotat
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Then Debian is (surprise!) not doing the smartest thing. Not using the logging
> collector means you miss several possible advantages, including CSV logs and
> protection against multiplexed log lines.
Well it's not the smartest thing by your set of priorities. Debian's
Stephen Frost wrote:
Joshua,
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
postgresql.log.1231878270
That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
get postgresql.log.
Or am I completely cranked?
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > You might think you do, but it won't work with PG; external rotators
> > only work with programs that respond to SIGHUP by re-opening their log
> > files.
>
> copytruncate resolves this issue
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > I have perfectly good log rotation utility that exists on my OS. (yes I
> > am aware of the possibility of losing a log entry when using logrotate).
>
> You might think you do, but it won't work with PG; external rotators
> on
Joshua,
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
>
> postgresql.log.1231878270
>
> That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
> get postgresql.log.
>
> Or am I completely cranked?
No. I agree
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > I have perfectly good log rotation utility that exists on my OS. (yes I
> > am aware of the possibility of losing a log entry when using logrotate).
>
> You might think you do, but it won't work with PG; external r
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> I have perfectly good log rotation utility that exists on my OS. (yes I
> am aware of the possibility of losing a log entry when using logrotate).
You might think you do, but it won't work with PG; external rotators
only work with programs that respond to SIGHUP by re-
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
> > postgresql.log.1231878270
> > That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
> > get postgresql.log.
>
> You'd probably reco
Robert Haas wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> >> When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
> >> postgresql.log.1231878270
> >> That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
> >> get postgresql.log.
> >
> > You'd probably reconsider around the tim
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
>> postgresql.log.1231878270
>> That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
>> get postgresql.log.
>
> You'd probably reconsider
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
> postgresql.log.1231878270
> That seems a bit, well wrong. If I say I want postgresql.log I should
> get postgresql.log.
You'd probably reconsider around the time the log file filled your disk.
You really
Hello,
O.k. so I admit I probably should have known this already but I didn't.
Normally I setup logging to use -%a.log. However I had a requirement
today that is having me setup a flat filename... as in postgresql.log.
When I set it up, it automatically appended the time so I got:
postgresql.log
24 matches
Mail list logo
