Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.10.9910241410580.30583-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)  (Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net>)
Responses Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Why not do something similar to what we are doing with pg_shadow?  If I
remember the logic right, when you update pg_shadow, one ofits "steps" is
to dump it to a text file so that postmaster can read it?  this should
make it easy for one user/database to have one logging set, while another
doesn' have it set at all...and should make it so that each database
*should* theoretically log to different files/mechanisms?

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Tim Holloway wrote:

> 
> 
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > 
> > > > There MUST exist a way to alter the logging level on-the-fly;
> > > > IMHO this is a rock bottom, non negotiable requirement.
> > >
> > > whilst i don't think this is MUST, it is EXTREMELY desirable and would make the
> > > logging actually useful for large installations =)
> > 
> > Let's re-iterate Tom here: There MUST exist a way ... someone *MUST* be
> > able to change their configuration without having to physically stop/start
> > the server to affect the changes ...
> > 
> > Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
> > Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> > primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
> 
> I think we have a consensus. Destroy and recreate logging
> data structures/tasks on receipt of
> suitable event.
> 
> For simple things like log levels, though, I'd still like
> feedback on
> desirablility and feasibility of altering basic logging
> options though
> (authorized!) frontends. As a user, I get nervous when I
> have to thread
> my way past possibly-fragile unrelated items in a config
> file when I'm trying
> to do a panic diagnosis. As an administrator, I get even
> MORE nervous if one
> of the less careful people I know were to be entrusted with
> that task.
> 
> Another possible mode of controlling what's logged is to
> assign mask bits to various
> classes of messaages and allow the administrator to alter
> the filter mask.
> Although, in truth, the channel design is pretty much the
> same thing.
> 
>     Tim Holloway
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (long message)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)