Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1zmOp5T70MX508nwFf8tvv2jOT+hGwLq8fNHLSxp-wVmQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
>> Patch attached. (Still using %t, I don't think %m makes sense for the
>> default.)

> What is the cost of using %m, other than 4 (rather compressible) bytes per
> log entry?

More log I/O, which is not free ... and that remark about compressibility
is bogus for anyone who doesn't pipe their postmaster stderr into gzip.
I'm already afraid that adding the timestamps will get us some pushback
about log volume.

I don't pipe them into gzip, but every few months I go and pxz any of them more than few months old.

Do you think the pushback will come from people who just accept the defaults?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Polyphase merge is obsolete
Next
From: Vitaly Burovoy
Date:
Subject: Re: macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support