On Wednesday March 23 2005 3:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> This is going to fall down on exactly the same objections that
> have been made to putting the log messages themselves into
> tables. The worst one is that a failed transaction would fail
> to make any entry whatsoever. There are also performance,
> locking, and security issues to think about. (Example: heaven
> help you if someone decides to VACUUM FULL the log table ---
> that would block every other process due to exclusive lock.)
I see your point. The ugliness of log-parsing beckons.
Thanks.
Ed
