Andreas Pflug wrote:
> > I wasn't talking about what looks best, I was talking about current 
> > practice for log files.  From that you might be able to extrapolate 
> > what other people have previously found to look best.
> > 
> > In any case, we're not using DOS and 12 inch monitors any more.  File 
> > names can be as long as we want.
> > 
> Before the thread concentrates too much on a decent default value, I'm 
> posting a fresh version of the patch, for some more discussion. Current 
> default for pg_logfile_prefix is 'postgresql-', may the committers 
> decide which name is The Perfect One.
> All previous suggestions have been included, (nb: abstimein is not 
> usable, because it ereports(ERROR) on failure; we want to skip wrong 
> files gracefully, so I'm using ParseDateTime and DecodeDateTime instead).
> I'd still need feedback on pg_dir_ls: should it merely return a setof 
> text, or should I enrich it to a record returning all stat data? After 
> spending another thought on it, I believe the more sql-like approach is 
> to deliver a full-featured record which is selected for the desired 
> data, not adding columns with functions.

This patch looks good to me.  As far as your question about pg_dir_ls
--- you already return multiple columns from pg_logdir_ls, so it seems
you would do the same for returning stat() information from pg_dir_ls,

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to