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
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
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
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
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
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