Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.10.9910242208450.377-100000@peter-e.yi.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) (Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 23, Tim Holloway mentioned: > I think we have a consensus. Destroy and recreate logging data > structures/tasks on receipt of suitable event. > > For simple things like log levels, though, I'd still like feedback on > desirablility and feasibility of altering basic logging options though > (authorized!) frontends. As a user, I get nervous when I have to > thread my way past possibly-fragile unrelated items in a config file > when I'm trying to do a panic diagnosis. As an administrator, I get > even MORE nervous if one of the less careful people I know were to be > entrusted with that task. What about SET LOGLEVEL TO <something>; SET LOGDETAIL TO <something>; or the like. You could use pg_shadow.usesuper as a security stipulation. Using something like a signal to do this is probably overkill, especially since there are hardly any left, and it's also infinitely less intuitive and flexible. -Peter -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: