Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 676.1457706123@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function (Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com> writes:
> Le 11/03/2016 10:49, Shulgin, Oleksandr a écrit :
>> Would it make sense to have it as a symlink instead?
> The only cons I see is that it can be more "difficult" with some
> language to gather the real path, but do we really need it? There is
> also little time where the symlink doesn't exist, this is when it needs
> to be removed before being recreated to point to the new log file.
Yeah, a symlink is impossible to update atomically (on most platforms
anyway). Plain file containing the pathname seems better.
Another point is that we might not necessarily want *only* the pathname in
there. postmaster.pid has accreted more stuff over time, and this file
might too. I can see wanting the syslogger PID in there, for example,
so that onlookers can detect a totally stale file. (Not proposing this
right now, just pointing out that it's a conceivable future feature.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: