> On Apr 15, 2018, at 10:07, Christophe Pettus <x...@thebuild.com> wrote: > > >> On Apr 15, 2018, at 09:51, David Arnold <dar@xoe.solutions> wrote: >> >> 1. Throughout this vivid discussion a good portion of support has already >> been manifested for the need of a more structured (machine readable) logging >> format. There has been no substantial objection to this need. > > I'm afraid I don't see that. While it's true that as a standard, CSV is > relatively ill-defined, as a practical matter in PostgreSQL it is very easy > to write code that parses .csv format.
More specifically, JSON logging does seem to be a solution in search of a problem. PostgreSQL's CSV logs are very easy to machine-parse, and if there are corrupt lines being emitted there, the first step should be to fix those, rather than introduce a new "this time, for sure" logging method. It's a matter of a few lines of code to convert CSV logs to a JSON format, if you need JSON format for something else. Remember, also, that every new logging format introduces a burden on downstream tools to support it. This is (still) an issue with JSON format plans, which had a much more compelling advantage over standard-format plans than JSON logs do over CSV. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.com
