Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 08:05:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somewhere along the way we seem to have made the syslogger's shutdown message go to stderr, even if we have redirected it: I'm pretty sure it has done that all along; at least the design intention is that messages generated by syslogger itself should go to its stderr. (Else, if the logger is having trouble, you might never get to find out why at all.) Yeah, I think it's been that way all along. It might be reasonable to reduce logger shutting down to DEBUG1 or so, now that the facility has been around for awhile. +1. For example, many windows system have *only* that message in the eventlog, and nothing else... Which is kind of strange. It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. As in special-casing this one message, and just ignore logging it in case it fails. But think we're fine just dropping the level. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. It does that too, no? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:45:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. It does that too, no? Ok, I admit writing that without actually checking anything :-) The main thing is that yes, I'd like to get it out of the eventlog. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It could be interesting to have it write it *to the logfile* though, since it'd then at least be in the same place as the others. It does that too, no? Yes, but if we make the message DEBUG1 it won't normally. Still, I think we could live with that. I'm not inclined to waste too much time on it. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, but if we make the message DEBUG1 it won't normally. Still, I think we could live with that. I'm not inclined to waste too much time on it. Yeah. I think the only reason it was LOG initially was because the syslogger was pretty experimental at the time. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somewhere along the way we seem to have made the syslogger's shutdown message go to stderr, even if we have redirected it: I'm pretty sure it has done that all along; at least the design intention is that messages generated by syslogger itself should go to its stderr. (Else, if the logger is having trouble, you might never get to find out why at all.) It might be reasonable to reduce logger shutting down to DEBUG1 or so, now that the facility has been around for awhile. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
