Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
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
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
On Sep 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] contorted a few electrons to say... Bruce OK, that makes sense. My only question is how many platforms _don't_ Bruce have syslog. If it is only NT and QNX, I think we can live with using Bruce it by default if it exists. perhaps you could take some code from http://freshmeat.net/projects/cpslapi/ which implements a syslog-api that writes to NT's eventlog. i'd be glad to change the license if it is useful. jr -- Joel W. Reed412-257-3881 --All the simple programs have been written. PGP signature ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
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. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
Tatsuo Ishii writes: Why are you so worrying about finding syslog() in configure? We have already done lots of function testings. Is there anything special with syslog()? All the other functions we test for come with a replacement plan. Either we choose between several similar alternatives (atexit/on_exit), or we link in our own function.o file. But we don't shut off a whole piece of functionality when one goes missing (except in the cases I mentioned). I'm probably being paranoid. But you did ask what became of the idea, and that's what did, as far as I'm concerned... -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
Tatsuo Ishii writes: Why are you so worrying about finding syslog() in configure? We have already done lots of function testings. Is there anything special with syslog()? All the other functions we test for come with a replacement plan. Either we choose between several similar alternatives (atexit/on_exit), or we link in our own function.o file. But we don't shut off a whole piece of functionality when one goes missing (except in the cases I mentioned). I'm probably being paranoid. But you did ask what became of the idea, and that's what did, as far as I'm concerned... 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. -- 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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
I know it can have an adverse effect on a mail server, is syslog going to give us any performance hits? Yes. On some platforms (HP-UX at least) applications can stall ~2s retrying if syslogd is not reading the messages written to its pipe. syslogd also has a reputation for using too much CPU under load, but this is annecdotal only -- I've not seen such a situation myself. Regards, Giles ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
On Mar 11 Sep 2001 02:07, Bruce Momjian wrote: There was a discussion about --enable-syslog by default. What was the consensus? I think this is a good one. Yes, I thought we decided it should be the default too. There was a discusion about log rotation last week, so, where are we going? Pipe the output of postmaster to a log rotator like apaches logrotate, or are we going to use syslog and have the syslog log rotator do the rotation? Just a dought I had. Saludos... :-) -- Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera, si podés usar PostgreSQL? - Martín Marqués |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional del Litoral - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
On Tuesday 11 September 2001 06:14 pm, Martín Marqués wrote: There was a discusion about log rotation last week, so, where are we going? Pipe the output of postmaster to a log rotator like apaches logrotate, or are we going to use syslog and have the syslog log rotator do the rotation? Both have their place. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote: There was a discussion about --enable-syslog by default. What was the consensus? I think this is a good one. Yes, I thought we decided it should be the default too. I know it can have an adverse effect on a mail server, is syslog going to give us any performance hits? Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com == ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
Tatsuo Ishii writes: There was a discussion about --enable-syslog by default. What was the consensus? I think this is a good one. It would be a good one if we make the blind assumption that syslog() exists on all platforms. That is possible, but not guaranteed. (BeOS, QNX, Cygwin?) The alternative suggestion to turn it off if syslog() is not found makes me wary. These schemes have invariably lead to problems in the past. Recall libpq++ being missed because of false test results, readline support mysteriously disappearing and nobody noticing until Mandrake had shipped their CDs. There are possible scenarios where syslog support could be missed by configure, such as when you need some compat or bsd library. An alternative scheme I wanted to implement for readline is --enable-foo = force feature to be used --disable-foo = force feature not to be used nothing = use feature if available but I'm afraid that this would create more confusion than it's worth because a prudent user would specify --enable-foo anyway. I'd rather type a few more things and get predictable behavior from configure rather than relying on it to pick the features for me. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] syslog by default?
There was a discussion about --enable-syslog by default. What was the consensus? I think this is a good one. Yes, I thought we decided it should be the default too. -- 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
