Re: TODO list

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>  
>
>>I thought we had thrashed this out back in August. Certainly the only
>>thing I recall seeing after I submitted the patch was some stylistic
>>criticism from Neil, which I addressed in a revised patch.
>>
>>Anyway, it is in principle doable. That's partly why I adopted a printf
>>style format string. There are some wrinkles, though:
>>. interaction with syslog pid/timestamp logging
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.  If you use syslog, just don't ask for pid/timestamp and let syslog
>do it.  Of course, right now we are able to send non-pid/timestamp to
>syslog _and_ send pid/timestamp to a log file, but that seems like a
>rare operation that doesn't justify keeping the various log parameters
>separate.
>



I'm OK with that as long as it is the consensus view. It does seem a 
little odd to remove functionality (however rare) for the sake of 
configuration neatness, though.

>
>Also, I would like to see some kind of session identifier that is more
>unique than pid, which wraps around.  Ideally we could have 10{pid},
>then then the pid wraps around, 20{pid), or something like that.
>


This requires some thought. ISTM it wouldn't buy you much unless you 
made it persistent across server restarts, and possibly not even then. I 
don't see it as a reason to hold up these features, though. If someone 
wants to tackle this it could be plugged in to the loginfo feature very 
easily as an extra escape sequence.

>
>  
>
>>. making sure the info is available when you need to log it - I had to
>>rearrange a few thing to avoid getting SEGVs, IIRC.
>>    
>>
>
>Of course some messages, like postmaster status messages, don't have
>some of these fields, like username or host.  Is that going to cause
>problems for tools that read our log files?
>


If users want a non-empty info string they will have to teach the tools 
to handle it anyway. The point was, however, that rolling up PID and 
timestamp into the printf-style format will require some significant 
work, because we wouldn't want to lose that info if the user/db weren't 
known, whereas the patch currently suppresses all log-info output if 
these are not present (i.e. when MyProcPort == NULL).

>
>  
>
>>Also, the session duration logging part of the patch is orthogonal to the
>>issue.
>>    
>>
>
>You mean query duration?  Yes, it is orthoginal.
>  
>


No, I meant the logging of the end of a session, including its duration, 
which was also in the patch.

cheers

andrew