On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 23:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 16:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>> > Then why not send everything to syslog and have syslog filter it to the
>>> > places you want to? That is what syslog is for, after all.
>>>
>>> We send all syslog output with the same identifier/priority/facility,
>>> so there's not a lot of hope of getting syslog to do any useful
>>> filtering (at least not with the versions of syslog I'm familiar with).
>>
>> Time to upgrade then. ;-) For example, the default syslog in Fedora has
>> been rsyslog since Fedora 8, and that one can do a lot more than just
>> filter by identifier/priority/facility. syslog-ng is another popular
>> example for a more featureful syslog.
>
> Presumably csvlog would be good for these sorts of things too, no?
> The whole point is it's machine-readable.
If there was a way to pipe the csv log through an external problem,
that would take care of much of the problem.
And I guess if you make that program responsible for *everything* it
would work - you just set your logging level to log very much data,
and let the external process deal with it. If we implemented the
ability to have a different logging level for different destinations
you could keep text logging for other things, or you could just
delegate all that to the external process as well. That would
basically turn the syslogger into a process that reads from the input
and sends the data out to an external process. But it could then
implement things like automatic restart of the external process in
case of crash etc, in perhaps a much easier way than the postmaster
can do for the syslogger itself.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
