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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us
firstname.lastname@example.org | (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