Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-23 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-23 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-23 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-23 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] syslogging oddity

2007-07-22 Thread Tom Lane
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