On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Having just sent two messages to the discussion about the wrong patch, >>> I'll >>> apologize, and shut up now :) >> >> No need to apologize --- this really is, and should be, all one >> conversation. I think the main problem I've got with applying either >> patch is that I don't believe we have consensus on the direction the >> logging code should go. Without that, it's a bad idea to accept >> incremental patches, even if they're arguably harmless by themselves. > > Agreed. The discussion does have en element of /déją vu,/ too. The the whole > idea behind log_line_prefix was to allow people to make easier and better > log splitting decisions after the fact. > > Like you I'm wary of adding too much extra processing into the elog code.
I think we have consensus that this patch isn't clearly moving us in the right direction, and might be moving us in the wrong direction, so I am going to mark it as Rejected. I also agree with Tom's comments that we don't have consensus on where this should go. I think it would help a lot if someone put together a design document (perhaps on the wiki) and tried to enumerate at a high level the logging requirements that aren't being satisfied by the current system. Then we could have a conversation about the right way to address them. By writing the code first, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
