Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1zmOp5T70MX508nwFf8tvv2jOT+hGwLq8fNHLSxp-wVmQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
>> Patch attached. (Still using %t, I don't think %m makes sense for the
>> default.)
> What is the cost of using %m, other than 4 (rather compressible) bytes per
> log entry?
More log I/O, which is not free ... and that remark about compressibility
is bogus for anyone who doesn't pipe their postmaster stderr into gzip.
I'm already afraid that adding the timestamps will get us some pushback
about log volume.
I don't pipe them into gzip, but every few months I go and pxz any of them more than few months old.
Do you think the pushback will come from people who just accept the defaults?
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: