Re: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs)
От | ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010208193847.C624@store.zembu.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:50:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes: > > Not so fast... logger just writes its arguments to syslog. I don't > > see any indication that it (portably) reads its standard input. > > FWIW, the HPUX 10.20 man page for logger sez: > > A message can be given on the command line, which is logged > immediately, or a file is read and each line is logged. If no > file or message is specified, the contents of the standard input > are logged. Right, I missed where the Linux man page says: logger [-is] [-f file] [-p pri] [-t tag] [-u socket] [message ...] ... _message_ Write the message to log; if notspecified, and the -f flag is not provided, standard input is logged. So now the question is, why did they write splogger? splogger parses the beginning of each message to assign a severity; if it finds "alert:" or "warning:" it assigns those, or "info" otherwise. To make splogger useful you have to know it's listening. > and they also claim > > STANDARDS CONFORMANCE > logger: XPG4, POSIX.2 > > The fact that it's POSIX.2 rather than POSIX.1 might worry folks, but > I suspect the majority of systems will have it if they have syslog. > > (Curiously, the HP man pages do not say that syslog(3) or syslogd(1m) > conform to *any* standard ... hmm ... is logger more portable than > syslog?) The Linux page says just: HISTORY A syslog function call appeared in BSD 4.2. Normally if there's a standard they mention it. Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: