Re: Feature request -- Log Database Name

There seem to be 2 orthogonal issues here - in effect how to log and 
where to log. I had a brief look and providing an option to log the 
dbname where appropriate seems to be quite easy - unless someone else is 
already doing it I will look at it on the weekend. Assuming that were 
done you could split the log based on dbname.

For the reasons Tom gives, logging to a table looks much harder and 
possibly undesirable - I would normally want my log table(s) in a 
different database, possibly even on a different machine, from my 
production transactional database. However, an ISP might want to provide 
the logs for each client in their designated db. It therefore seems to 
me far more sensible to do load logs into tables out of band as Tom 
suggests, possibly with some helper tools in contrib to parse the logs, 
or even to load them in more or less real time (many tools exist to do 
this sort of thing for web logs, so it is hardly rocket science - 
classic case for a perl script ;-).

cheers

andrew


ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:39:23 -0400
>>From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>>To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
>>Cc: ohp@pyrenet.fr, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
>>     Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
>>     pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
>>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature request -- Log Database Name
>>
>>Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>>    
>>
>>>I think better would be a GUC "log_to_table" which wrote all standard
>>>out/err to a pg_log table.  of course, I doubt you could make this
>>>foolproof (how to log startup errors in this table?) but it could be a
>>>start.
>>>      
>>>
>>How would a failed transaction make any entries in such a table?  How
>>would you handle maintenance operations on the table that require
>>exclusive lock?  (vacuum full, reindex, etc)
>>
>>It seems possible that you could make this work if you piped stderr to a
>>buffering process that was itself a database client, and issued INSERTs
>>to put the rows into the table, and could buffer pending data whenever
>>someone else had the table locked (eg for vacuum).  I'd not care to try
>>to get backends to do it locally.
>>
>>            regards, tom lane
>>    
>>
>Not quite, my goal is to have a log per database, the stderr dosn't
>contain enough information to split it.
>
>As an ISP, I would like that each customer having one or more databases
>being able to see any error on their database.
>I imagine have a log file per database would be toot complicated...
>  
>
>
>  
>