Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.10.9910242208450.377-100000@peter-e.yi.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (longmessage)  (Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging  ("Aaron J. Seigo" <aaron@gtv.ca>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Oct 23, Tim Holloway mentioned:

> 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.

What about
SET LOGLEVEL TO <something>;
SET LOGDETAIL TO <something>;
or the like. You could use pg_shadow.usesuper as a security stipulation.
Using something like a signal to do this is probably overkill, especially
since there are hardly any left, and it's also infinitely less intuitive
and flexible.
-Peter

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mike Mascari
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] COMMENT ON patch
Next
From: "Aaron J. Seigo"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging