Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: +1 on that. The problem of ensuring atomic output remains though (see nearby complaints from George Pavlov and others). Is that the one you suggested trying to fix by calling write() instead of

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: My second thought is that we should quite possibly abandon this translation altogether - we know that our COPY code is quite happy with either style of line ending, as long as the file is consistent, and also many Windows programs will quite

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: My second thought is that we should quite possibly abandon this translation altogether - we know that our COPY code is quite happy with either style of line ending, as long as the file is consistent, and also many Windows programs will quite happily read files with Unix

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been looking at the syslogger code in connection with the CSV log output proposal, and I'm quite concerned about the way it translates every \n into \r\n for Windows output. ... My second thought is that we should quite possibly abandon this

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have been looking at the syslogger code in connection with the CSV log output proposal, and I'm quite concerned about the way it translates every \n into \r\n for Windows output. This has several problems, not least of which is that we can by no means assume that

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been looking at the syslogger code in connection with the CSV log output proposal, and I'm quite concerned about the way it translates every \n into \r\n for Windows output. ... My second thought is that we should quite

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: +1 on that. The problem of ensuring atomic output remains though (see nearby complaints from George Pavlov and others). Is that the one you suggested trying to fix by calling write() instead of fprintf()? If so, I can't think of any

Re: [HACKERS] syslogger line-end processing infelicity

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: The other little problem (which is the reason we like the stderr approach in the first place) is that not all the stderr output we want to capture comes from code under our control. This may not be a huge problem in production situations, since the main issue in my experience