> On Apr 15, 2018, at 10:07, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 15, 2018, at 09:51, David Arnold <dar@xoe.solutions> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Throughout this vivid discussion a good portion of support has already been manifested for the need of a more
structured(machine readable) logging format. There has been no substantial objection to this need.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see that. While it's true that as a standard, CSV is relatively ill-defined, as a practical
matterin PostgreSQL it is very easy to write code that parses .csv format.
More specifically, JSON logging does seem to be a solution in search of a problem. PostgreSQL's CSV logs are very easy
tomachine-parse, and if there are corrupt lines being emitted there, the first step should be to fix those, rather than
introducea new "this time, for sure" logging method.
It's a matter of a few lines of code to convert CSV logs to a JSON format, if you need JSON format for something else.
Remember, also, that every new logging format introduces a burden on downstream tools to support it. This is (still)
anissue with JSON format plans, which had a much more compelling advantage over standard-format plans than JSON logs do
overCSV.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com