Re: Log files, how to rotate properly
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Dave Cramer <Dave@micro-automation.net>, <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-06-14T15:16:14Z
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thursday 14 June 2001 10:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Lamar Owen writes: > > I have yet to see a 'lost' syslog message here, in over three years. > I didn't mean sylog losing messages, but some PostgreSQL messages not > getting there. Then whose fault is that? Is it our syslog calling, or the receiving syslog not hearing? (Yes, I know that by default syslog uses UDP).... > > If syslog looses messages, let's try helping fix syslog rather than > > recommending Yet Another Log Rotating Solution. > YALRS is fine by me. Why reinvent the wheel? Particularly such a generic, OS function wheel as logging? > Note that syslog requires root access, which we > don't want to require. This is a tired mantra -- most PostgreSQL installations are being run by DBA's with either direct root access or a friendly sysadmin (the proof is that the RPMset probably has more users than the regular build, and installation of the RPMset requires root on most RPM-supported OSes). Besides, _recommending_ syslog != _requiring_ syslog -- the current build system for logging isn't broken and doesn't need fixing -- but rather than recommend a non-syslog solution out of hand, an even presentation of the options is more productive. We have good syslog support -- and we have good non-syslog support. Neither are really _great_, but both work. Neither should be removed, by any means, and neither should be required, either. Which means a consistent elog() usage is to be preferred over a mix of elog() and fputs/fprintf. For those that can't get either root access or a friendly enough sysadmin, a presentation of the options available to them is good as well. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11