>I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV.

Under common paradigms you are right, but if we talk of line-by-line
streaming with subsequent processing, then it's a show stopper. Of course,
some log aggregators have buffers for that and can do Multiline parsing on
that buffer, but
1. Not all log aggregators support it
2. Building a parser which reliably detects Multiline logs AND is easy on
resources is probably not something a normal person can achieve quickly.

So normally CSV is fine but for log streaming it's not the best, nor the
most standard compliant way.

El sáb., 14 abr. 2018, 10:51 a.m., Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> escribió:

> David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> > I think a suite of json_to_* utilities would be a good bit more
> > helpful in this regard than changing our human-eye-consumable logs. We
> > already have human-eye-consumable logs by default.  What we don't
> > have, and increasingly do want, is a log format that's really easy on
> > machines.
> I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV.
>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to