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
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 to this,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
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.
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 formatting
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
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:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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.
Robert Haas wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
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 with
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
* 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 does it
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?
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com 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
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),
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
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
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 think a
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 question
24 matches
Mail list logo
