Re: logging stuff
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logging stuff |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F3004D8.8090704@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logging stuff (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: logging stuff
Re: logging stuff |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Not quite the same - timestamps and pids have known formats, while db names are almost arbitrary. I know including spaces in names is horrible to my *nix way of thinking, but others might not have my prejudices. (interesting question - what characters are NOT allowed in a database name?). BTW, we're talking about 5 extra chars per line here. I know it adds up, but these days disk space is cheap and plentiful - for a million log lines we're still only talking 5Mb (says he whose first machine had a whopping 20Mb of disk space, and who paid hundreds of (aussie) dollars for the extra 10 Mb.) Syslog puts [] around pids, and typically has a lot of redundancy. I'm prepared to be guided by concensus, though. cheers andrew Tom Lane wrote: >Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > >>The dbname patch is now done. If nobody objects to the format >>("[db:yourdbname]") I'll submit it - I did it that way to make it fairly >>easy to split a log file based on it, although you would have to be >>careful with multiline log entries such as query strings. >> >> > >I'd tend to just put the dbname in a known column, and not bother with >the decoration --- decoration adds up fast when it's on every log line, >and I don't think it helps make the log more parseable. Compare what we >do with timestamps and pids. > > regards, tom lane > > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: