Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Hmmm ... I don't see this as a problem. Just stick the whole message into
>> a single XML field. This is one area where XML is easier that SQL; since
>> it's a document format, it has no problem with a great big blob of text.
>> "Unstructured Data" and all that nonsense.
>
>> Then whatever utility the user uses to *read* the XML can parse the message
>> according to the user's desires. It'll still be an improvement over the
>> current format for log digestion, since it will become easy to separate
>> the message from the prefix and tag (which currently it's not).
>
> This argument strikes me as nonsense. You've got a utility that's smart
> enough to parse the very-free-format message bodies, but it's going to
> be too confused by the log line prefix?
Not that Tom's dissent isn't enough, but I have to agree. It is very
easy to set up a parser for the log and XML is just going to add noise.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency:
+1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
