On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Having just sent two messages to the discussion about the wrong patch,
>>> I'll
>>> apologize, and shut up now :)
>>
>> No need to apologize --- this really is, and should be, all one
>> conversation. I think the main problem I've got with applying either
>> patch is that I don't believe we have consensus on the direction the
>> logging code should go. Without that, it's a bad idea to accept
>> incremental patches, even if they're arguably harmless by themselves.
>
> Agreed. The discussion does have en element of /déją vu,/ too. The the whole
> idea behind log_line_prefix was to allow people to make easier and better
> log splitting decisions after the fact.
>
> Like you I'm wary of adding too much extra processing into the elog code.
I think we have consensus that this patch isn't clearly moving us in
the right direction, and might be moving us in the wrong direction, so
I am going to mark it as Rejected.
I also agree with Tom's comments that we don't have consensus on where
this should go. I think it would help a lot if someone put together a
design document (perhaps on the wiki) and tried to enumerate at a high
level the logging requirements that aren't being satisfied by the
current system. Then we could have a conversation about the right way
to address them. By writing the code first, I think we're putting the
cart before the horse.
...Robert
