Re: change name of redirect_stderr?

On 8/15/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> > The consistent prefix idea sounds good; does "logging_enable" jive
> > with your proposal?
>
> I dislike it.  I claim that logging to plain stderr (without the
> syslogger process) is still logging.  Logging to syslog (which also
> doen't need the syslogger process) is *definitely* logging.  Something
> named "logging_enable" would suggest to the normal person that without
> it turned on, you'll get *nothing*.
>
> I'm not wedded to "collector" per se, but you really cannot escape the
> fact that there is one more concept in here than you wish to admit.
> I think that reflecting the existence of a collector process in the GUC
> names makes things clearer, not less clear.

Fair enough.  I just took a fresh look at postmaster.conf, and indeed
the logging variables are more complex than I gave them credit for
with "logging_enable".  Retracted.