Re: change name of redirect_stderr?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: change name of redirect_stderr?
Date: 2007-08-14 19:26:11
Message-ID: 10620.1187119571@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> AIUI, if the-GUC-yet-to-be-named is not enabled, no logging is done
> at all: messages are just sent to stderr. Why something simple like
> enable_logging or start_logger?

Um, that's still logging by my definition. I could live with
"start_logger", since that is not the same as "logging".

It could be that if we want real consistency we're going to have to make
more changes than this one. Consider something like this:

* All variables that cause a specific kind of log message to be printed
or not shall be named "log_<something>". (So "log_" is a verb.)

* Variables that affect the logging mechanism as a whole shall be named
"logging_<something>".

For example, "log_line_prefix" is misnamed under this rule, and ought to
be "logging_line_prefix". Similarly, redirect_stderr would become
"logging_something" --- I'd prefer "logging_start_collector" but could
live with "logging_collector" (or maybe "logging_use_collector"?)

Looking at the docs, there are a whole bunch of GUCs that would have
to be renamed to meet this rule, but I think it would become clearer
what does what.

Is that too radical?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-08-14 19:26:17 Re: tsearch2 in PostgreSQL 8.3?
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-08-14 19:17:36 Re: tsearch2 in PostgreSQL 8.3?