Thread: syslogging oddity
Somewhere along the way we seem to have made the syslogger's shutdown message go to stderr, even if we have redirected it: [andrew@constanza inst.test.5703]$ bin/pg_ctl -D data/ -w stop waiting for server to shut down....LOG: logger shutting downdone server stopped Not sure if this is something we should worry about. I don't recall it happening previously. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Somewhere along the way we seem to have made the syslogger's shutdown
> message go to stderr, even if we have redirected it:
I'm pretty sure it has done that all along; at least the design
intention is that messages generated by syslogger itself should go to
its stderr. (Else, if the logger is having trouble, you might never get
to find out why at all.)
It might be reasonable to reduce "logger shutting down" to DEBUG1
or so, now that the facility has been around for awhile.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 08:05:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > Somewhere along the way we seem to have made the syslogger's shutdown > > message go to stderr, even if we have redirected it: > > I'm pretty sure it has done that all along; at least the design > intention is that messages generated by syslogger itself should go to > its stderr. (Else, if the logger is having trouble, you might never get > to find out why at all.) Yeah, I think it's been that way all along. > It might be reasonable to reduce "logger shutting down" to DEBUG1 > or so, now that the facility has been around for awhile. +1. For example, many windows system have *only* that message in the eventlog, and nothing else... Which is kind of strange. It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. As in special-casing this one message, and just ignore logging it in case it fails. But think we're fine just dropping the level. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since
> it'd then at least be in the same place as the others.
It does that too, no?
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:45:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since > > it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. > > It does that too, no? Ok, I admit writing that without actually checking anything :-) The main thing is that yes, I'd like to get it out of the eventlog. //Magnus
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > >> It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since >> it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. >> > > It does that too, no? > > > Yes, but if we make the message DEBUG1 it won't normally. Still, I think we could live with that. I'm not inclined to waste too much time on it. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Yes, but if we make the message DEBUG1 it won't normally. Still, I think
> we could live with that. I'm not inclined to waste too much time on it.
Yeah. I think the only reason it was LOG initially was because the
syslogger was pretty experimental at the time.
regards, tom lane