On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 05:04:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:19:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> However, I don't think I actually believe the premise of this patch,
> >> which is that sending log information to both stderr and syslog is
> >> a useful thing to do
> >
> > Actually the thing I want is to be able to send some stuff to syslog, and some
> > to a file, and other stuff to another file. This patch doesn't do all that,
> > but lays the necessary groundwork.
>
> I don't think it does anything of the sort. Getting to that point by
> adding GUCs is quickly going to produce obviously unacceptable numbers
> of GUCs. Or if it isn't, then I'd like to hear the whole designed
> laid out. I think Magnus's idea of a separate config file is much
> more likely to be succesful than what we have here, but that too will
> require some design that hasn't been done yet.
This doesn't approach the issue of how precisely you'd configure a more
complex logging scheme, because clearly that will be complex. The whole
purpose here is to let the syslogger know stuff about the log messages it
gets, so it can act on them intelligently.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
