Thread: [HACKERS] rename pg_log directory?
How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, 'log'? We have been emphasizing that the prefix "pg_" is for things reserved to PostgreSQL, whereas the pg_log directory is entirely an arbitrary user-space name. Also, with a different name, the directory would stand out more between all the other pg_* directories in the data directory. Obviously, users could set the name back to the old one if they want. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:05:16AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > 'log'? +1 A lot of work has already gone into this release to clarify what things are PostgreSQL internals and which ones are not. This will help. Yes, monitoring tools will need to take this into account. The people this will help will be the majority of our users, namely people who have yet to adopt PostgreSQL[1]. Best, David. [1] The project could fail completely next week, making our past and current users could be the majority, but that would be very sad. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say,
> 'log'?
> We have been emphasizing that the prefix "pg_" is for things reserved to
> PostgreSQL, whereas the pg_log directory is entirely an arbitrary
> user-space name. Also, with a different name, the directory would stand
> out more between all the other pg_* directories in the data directory.
No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too
generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better?
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:51:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > > 'log'? > > > We have been emphasizing that the prefix "pg_" is for things reserved to > > PostgreSQL, whereas the pg_log directory is entirely an arbitrary > > user-space name. Also, with a different name, the directory would stand > > out more between all the other pg_* directories in the data directory. > > No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too > generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better? "activity_log"? I like the idea of a rename. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:51:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say,
> > 'log'?
>
> > We have been emphasizing that the prefix "pg_" is for things reserved to
> > PostgreSQL, whereas the pg_log directory is entirely an arbitrary
> > user-space name. Also, with a different name, the directory would stand
> > out more between all the other pg_* directories in the data directory.
>
> No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too
> generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better?
"activity_log"? I like the idea of a rename.
server_log seems like a better choice then I think. So +1 for that.
In theory cluster_log since it's a "cluster level log", but given how many people already get confused by the term cluster being used that way, I think that while maybe technically correct, that would be a very bad choice.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
server_log seems like a better choice then I think. So +1 for that.
server_log +1
In theory cluster_log since it's a "cluster level log", but given how many people already get confused by the term cluster being used that way, I think that while maybe technically correct, that would be a very bad choice.
On 2/27/17 09:51, Tom Lane wrote: > No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too > generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better? Well, "log" is pretty well established. There is /var/log, and if you unpack a, say, Kafka or Cassandra distribution, they also come with a log or logs directory. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2/28/17 06:07, Magnus Hagander wrote: > server_log seems like a better choice then I think. So +1 for that. > > In theory cluster_log since it's a "cluster level log", but given how > many people already get confused by the term cluster being used that > way, I think that while maybe technically correct, that would be a very > bad choice. Well, the premise was that we wanted to rename xlog because people think that the "log" is "the log". So there should be no confusion if there is only one "log" left. (cough, cough, clog, cough, cough) I think if we invent nonstandard names, it will be more confusing, not less. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 03/01/2017 05:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/27/17 09:51, Tom Lane wrote: >> No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too >> generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better? > > Well, "log" is pretty well established. There is /var/log, and if you > unpack a, say, Kafka or Cassandra distribution, they also come with a > log or logs directory. +1, though I am also fine with server_log. Andreas
Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:
> On 03/01/2017 05:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2/27/17 09:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too
>>> generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better?
>> Well, "log" is pretty well established. There is /var/log, and if you
>> unpack a, say, Kafka or Cassandra distribution, they also come with a
>> log or logs directory.
> +1, though I am also fine with server_log.
FWIW, I'm not strongly advocating for "server_log", I just thought it
was worth having some discussion around the name. Peter's point above
is pretty good though.
regards, tom lane
On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > 'log'? I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which name is picked as long as we get rid off the "pg_" prefix. Btw, is there a reason for why global and base do not have the "pg_" prefix? Andreas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Attachment
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:01:04AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > >'log'? > > I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which name > is picked as long as we get rid off the "pg_" prefix. > > Btw, is there a reason for why global and base do not have the "pg_" prefix? "data" and "base" where chosen because it is a "data-base", but with the pg_ prefixes it would be a pg_data_pg_base. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 03/09/2017 11:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > "data" and "base" where chosen because it is a "data-base", but with the > pg_ prefixes it would be a pg_data_pg_base. ;-) Haha, I had not spotted that one despite always naming my data directory "data" while developing. Fun little tidbit there. Andreas
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23:54AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 03/09/2017 11:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >"data" and "base" where chosen because it is a "data-base", but with the > >pg_ prefixes it would be a pg_data_pg_base. ;-) > > Haha, I had not spotted that one despite always naming my data directory > "data" while developing. Fun little tidbit there. Yeah, we can thank the creative Berkeley students for that one, I think. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 3/6/17 18:01, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, >> 'log'? > > I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which > name is picked as long as we get rid off the "pg_" prefix. Committed. While digging around a bit, I found in release-old.sgml that before PostgreSQL 7.2, pg_clog was called pg_log. Go figure. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 03/27/2017 04:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Committed. Thanks! > While digging around a bit, I found in release-old.sgml that before > PostgreSQL 7.2, pg_clog was called pg_log. Go figure. Yeah, I noticed that too when writing the patch. :) Andreas