Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:28:22AM +0000, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >I did not include pg_logdir_ls because that was basically pg_ls_dir with
> > >logic to decode the log file name and convert it to a timestamp.  That
> > >seemed best done in the client.
> > 
> > IMHO omitting pg_logdir_ls is a bad idea, because the function is 
> > intended to hide server internal's naming scheme from the user. We want 
> > as few server side implementation specific client side code as possible. 
> BTW, it surprised me that one of the functions (don't remember which
> one) expected the log files to be named in a very specific fashion.  So
> there's no flexibility for changing the log_prefix.  Probably it's not
> so bad, but strange anyway.  Is this for "security" reasons?

Righ, pg_logdir_ls() was the function.  My feeling is that the
application has access to the log_directory and log_filename values and
can better and move flexibly filter pg_ls_dir() on the client end than
we can do on the server.  It just seemed like something that we better
done outside the server.

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to