On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:55:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2018-11-30 19:53:18 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> >> This makes it much simpler for computers to use the logs while not
> >> making it excessively difficult for humans to use them.
>
> > While perhaps not excessively so, I think it increases the difficulty
> > sufficiently that I'm against such a proposal.
>
> I don't like this either. People who prefer CSV format can select it
> trivially. Those who don't are going to be annoyed at us for changing
> behavior that's stood for many years.
>
> Also, in addition to the objections you noted, there's the problem that
> this change requires changing logging_collector to default to "on".
> That's an *enormous* compatibility break, because of the effects on
> where the log output goes. Not to mention having performance impacts
> that can be significant.
>
> I think we should reject this out of hand.
It's been far too long since I got one of these!
> > I think having a bin/pg_logparse tool that can parse postgres' config
> > file and attempt to parse the log contents in whatever format they are
> > would be much much more useful. Obviously not every log_line_prefix can
> > be parsed unambiguously, but a lot of formats can, and a lot more
> > formats can be made unambiguous (e.g. adding escape logic to application
> > name logging would be very useful).
>
> Yeah, it might be possible to make some progress in those directions.
So application names need better handling, and possibly reviews for
security considerations, and pg_logparse ?
OK.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate