[Pgpool-hackers] Found bug with debug_level

[Guillaume Lelarge]

Le 30/12/2010 16:01, jgdr at dalibo.com a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:19:07 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii
> <ishii at sraoss.co.jp>
> wrote:
>>>>> Fortunately we have syslog support now :-) but if we want to fix the
>>>>> stderr logging problem we have to allow pgpool to save it into a
> given
>>>>> file like with a -l logfile command line option or/and in the
>>>>> configuration file with a 'log_to_file' option instead of letting the
>>>>> user creating a shell redirection that is only useful at main process
>>>>> startup.
>>>>
>>>> Problem with this aproach is we need a rog rotation functionality at
>>>> the same time. Otherwise the logfile will become infinitely large
>>>> until pgpool process restarts. IMO if we implement "log_to_file", we
>>>> need our own log rotator as well. Probably these functions will be
>>>> pretty much similar to PostgreSQL's one(aka. logging collector
>>>> process) if we want to implement.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we shouldn't focus on rotation yet but just fix this issue. If
>>> pgPool 
>>> need to rotate is own log file, it would be better to make it a
> seperate
>>> patch. 
>>
>> I'm not against the log rotation patch be separate one. But I think
>> log to file patch should include the ability to close and re-open the
>> log file when certain signal is received.
> 
> sure, IIRC, the signal is SIGUSR2 with PostgreSQL.
> 

I think we need two patches at most. First one to push logs in a file
(with a signal to rotate the file). Second one for rotation.

But please, please, keep same name for same parameter.
logging_collector. log_filename, log_directory.

I don't think we need the rotation patch, but if Gilles wants to work on
it, I won't complain :)

>>> Mind you, I even think rotation shouldn't be in the scope or PostgreSQL
>>> at
>>>
>>> all. We have some better ways to deal with rotation, logrotate itself
> is
>>> much
>>> better and functionnal than PostgreSQL.
>>
>> Can you elaborate why PostgreSQL's logger process is not good? I think
>> your point was already examined when the discussions on logger process
>> were going on the PostgreSQL hacker's list.
> 
> It probably has been discussed on -hackers yes. Moreover, I didn't write 
> PostgreSQL's logger process is not good though.
> 
> I think external projects dedicated to log rotation are much better and 
> functional: better frequency control, compression, retention. IMO, such 
> functionalities are not in the scope of PostgreSQL or pgPool.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't mind having such options in both projects, I
> just
> think they have really low priority. 
> 

+1

> Having pgPool beeing able to take care of its own log file is a high
> priority though  :)

+1


-- 
Guillaume
 http://www.postgresql.fr
 http://dalibo.com