Re: [HACKERS] Logging - pg_options format change?

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> writes:
> > > Would it be objectionable if I altered the format of the pg_options
> > > file slightly?  I feel the need to handle a somewhat more complex
> > > syntax for the logging subsystem.
> >
> > While I'm not particularly wedded to the pg_options format, I wonder
> > whether it wouldn't be a better idea to create a separate file for
> > the logging control data.  If I'm reading your proposal correctly,
> > the backend would no longer parse existing pg_options files --- and
> > that's certain to make dbadmins unhappy, even if the fix is easy.
> > Upgrades are always stressful enough, even without added complications
> > like forced changes to config files.
> >
> > You could probably tweak the syntax so that an existing pg_options
> > file is still valid, but that might be a bit too klugy.  What's
> > wrong with having two separate files?  We can assume that this isn't
> > a performance-critical path, I think.
> 
> With a 7.0 release, I think we can revamp that file without too many
> complaints.  pg_options file is fairly new, and it is an administrator's
> thing, and only has to be done once.  Seems like a revamp to make it
> clear for all users would help.  Having two files would mean explaining
> that to people for ever.
> 
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
>   maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Not to worry - the operative word was "wrap". In fact, I planned to leave the existing
debug parser intact and just jump into it if the proper trigger for extended syntax isn't
seen (also as a subprocessor if it IS seen). I've been on the receiving end of trauma
too many times myself.

I had considered making a "postgresql.conf" file with an option for debugging statements,
but the net effect would just be the same anyway. Besides, Apache went the multi-config
file route and regretted it. I'd rather not repeat history if a little advance planning
can avoid it.

There's another consideration. If a SIGHUP rescanned the ENTIRE configuration and there were
two config files, BOTH of them would end up being processed anyway.
   Tim Holloway