Re: [BUGS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 475B4D14.9080906@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> One issue here is that CONTEXT is potentially multiple lines. I'm not >>> sure that there is much we can do about that, especially not at the last >>> minute. If we had some time to rewrite internal APIs it might be fun to >>> think about emitting that as array of text not just text, but I fear >>> it's much too late to consider that now. >>> > > >> I'm not sure that putting all this into a single extra field would be so >> wrong. As for an array of text, that doesn't seem very portable. I don't >> think we should assume that Postgres is the only intended program >> destination of CSV logs. >> > > Well, I don't see that "{some text,more text,yet more text}" is going > to be harder to cram into the average CSV-reader than "some text > more text > yet more text". However, in most cases split_to_array on newlines > would be a good enough way of deconstructing the field in Postgres, > so maybe it's not worth worrying about. > > Anyway, I think that we should just make the CSV fields be the same as > the existing divisions in the textual log format, which seem to have > stood up well enough in use since 7.4 or whenever we put that scheme in. > > > OK, works for me. I'll try to look at it after I have attended to the Windows build issues. My plate is pretty full right now, though. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: