| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPYable logs status |
| Date: | 2007-06-08 20:47:08 |
| Message-ID: | 4669C04C.7070003@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> How about creating a log-writing-process? Postmaster could write to the
>> log files directly until the log-writer is up and running, then all
>> processes can send their log output through the log-writer.
>
> We *have* a log-writing process. The problem is in getting the data to it.
By that I assume you mean the bgwriter, I thought that was for WAL data,
I didn't think it could or perhaps should be used for normal log file
writing, but I also know I'm way outside my comfort area in talking
about this, so excuse the noise if this is way off base.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2007-06-08 21:38:41 | Binary mode copy in from stdin |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-08 20:42:31 | Re: COPYable logs status |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-06-08 21:37:54 | Re: Synchronized scans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-08 20:42:31 | Re: COPYable logs status |