Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
Date
Msg-id 200407202137.41942.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions  (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> For logs I think pgsql_ is best because that filename is already
> going to be long, and I don't usually like dashes in file names.
> They look too much like arguments, but tarballs use them and it looks
> OK there, I guess.

I wasn't talking about what looks best, I was talking about current
practice for log files.  From that you might be able to extrapolate
what other people have previously found to look best.

In any case, we're not using DOS and 12 inch monitors any more.  File
names can be as long as we want.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump --clean w/ <= 7.2 server
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: pg_config