On Thursday 14 June 2001 10:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > I have yet to see a 'lost' syslog message here, in over three years.
> I didn't mean sylog losing messages, but some PostgreSQL messages not
> getting there.
Then whose fault is that? Is it our syslog calling, or the receiving syslog
not hearing? (Yes, I know that by default syslog uses UDP)....
> > If syslog looses messages, let's try helping fix syslog rather than
> > recommending Yet Another Log Rotating Solution.
> YALRS is fine by me.
Why reinvent the wheel? Particularly such a generic, OS function wheel as
logging?
> Note that syslog requires root access, which we
> don't want to require.
This is a tired mantra -- most PostgreSQL installations are being run by
DBA's with either direct root access or a friendly sysadmin (the proof is
that the RPMset probably has more users than the regular build, and
installation of the RPMset requires root on most RPM-supported OSes).
Besides, _recommending_ syslog != _requiring_ syslog -- the current build
system for logging isn't broken and doesn't need fixing -- but rather than
recommend a non-syslog solution out of hand, an even presentation of the
options is more productive.
We have good syslog support -- and we have good non-syslog support. Neither
are really _great_, but both work. Neither should be removed, by any means,
and neither should be required, either. Which means a consistent elog()
usage is to be preferred over a mix of elog() and fputs/fprintf.
For those that can't get either root access or a friendly enough sysadmin, a
presentation of the options available to them is good as well.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
