Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Since we now have the node name in the log file name, perhaps we no
> > longer need the port number in there
>
> There is no node name in the log file name as of now, they are built
> using the port number, and the information of a node is dumped into
> the central log file when created (see dump_info).
Yeah, I realized this after posting. What I thought was the node name,
based on some of the files I had laying around, was actually the test
name.
> I guess that to complete your idea we could allow PostgresNode to get
> a custom name for its log file through an optional parameter like
> logfile => 'myname' or similar. And if nothing is defined, process
> falls back to applname. So this would give the following:
> ${testname}_${logfile}.log
Sure. I don't think we should the name only for the log file, though,
but also for things like the "## " informative messages we print here
and there. That would make the log file simpler to follow. Also, I'm
not sure about having it be optional. (TBH I'm not sure about applname
either; why do we keep that one?)
> It seems that we had better keep the test name as a prefix of the log
> file name though, to avoid an overlap with any other test in the same
> series. Thoughts?
Yes, agreed on that.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
