Logging auto_explain outputs to another log file

Started by Devrim GÜNDÜZabout 17 years ago4 messages
#1Devrim GÜNDÜZ
devrim@gunduz.org

Hi,

Is $SUBJECT possible? If not, do you think it would be worth
implementing this?

If this parameter is not used appropriately, it may fill up logs --
that's why I am asking this question.

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Devrim GÜNDÜZ (#1)
Re: Logging auto_explain outputs to another log file

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:

Is $SUBJECT possible? If not, do you think it would be worth
implementing this?

No, and no. The feature isn't even in core; it can hardly qualify as
something that should drive a massive overhaul of the elog
infrastructure. Which is what this would take.

regards, tom lane

#3Andrew Dunstan
andrew@dunslane.net
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: Logging auto_explain outputs to another log file

Tom Lane wrote:

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:

Is $SUBJECT possible? If not, do you think it would be worth
implementing this?

No, and no. The feature isn't even in core; it can hardly qualify as
something that should drive a massive overhaul of the elog
infrastructure. Which is what this would take.

Well, it might be possible to build some sort of splitting facility
(regex based?) into the logging collector without having to change the
rest of the logging infrastructure.

But there are already good log splitting tools for some varieties of
syslog, and like Tom I suspect using any effort in this direction on our
part is probably not worth it.

cheers

andrew

#4Robert Treat
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
In reply to: Andrew Dunstan (#3)
Re: Logging auto_explain outputs to another log file

On Sunday 23 November 2008 15:50:09 Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:

Is $SUBJECT possible? If not, do you think it would be worth
implementing this?

No, and no. The feature isn't even in core; it can hardly qualify as
something that should drive a massive overhaul of the elog
infrastructure. Which is what this would take.

Well, it might be possible to build some sort of splitting facility
(regex based?) into the logging collector without having to change the
rest of the logging infrastructure.

But there are already good log splitting tools for some varieties of
syslog, and like Tom I suspect using any effort in this direction on our
part is probably not worth it.

How would you folks feel about adding a dtrace probe to look for this? I
haven't exactly worked out where/how this would be put, but it would allow
for easily tracking these via dtrace if we had one.

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com