On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Something along these lines would be OK with me (I haven't yet >> validated every detail), but there were previous objections to adding >> any new fields to log_line_prefix until we had a flexible CSV format. >> I think that's raising the bar a bit too high, personally, but I don't >> have the only vote around here... > > I think I was the one objecting. I don't necessarily say that we have > to have a "flexible" CSV format, but I do say that facilities that are > available in log_line_prefix and not in CSV logs are a bad thing.
Well, I guess the other option is to just add it to the format, full stop. But as someone pointed out previously, that's not a terribly scalable solution, but perhaps it could be judged adequate for this particular case. While I generally agree with the principal, I also wonder if it might be better to just add this field in log_line_prefix and wait for someone to complain about that as other than a theoretical matter. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
