"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> IOW, I think a fair response to this is "if you're using logrotate with >> Postgres, you're doing it wrong". That was of some use back before we >> spent so much sweat on the syslogger, but it's not a reasonable setup >> today.
> A couple of weeks ago a message was posted to general [1] in which I > concluded the desired behavior is not supported natively. I'm curious > whether better advice than mine can be given ... > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKoQ0XHAy9De1C8gxUWHSW6w5iKcqX03wyWGe_%2Bc8NxJccCBHw%40mail.gmail.com#cakoq0xhay9de1c8gxuwhsw6w5ikcqx03wywge_+c8nxjccc...@mail.gmail.com The particular behavior that guy wanted would require some new %-escape in the log_filename parameter. Essentially we'd need to keep an increasing sequence counter for log files and have it wrap around at some user-specified count (5 in his example), then add a %-escape to include the counter value in the generated filename. It's not an unreasonable idea, if somebody wanted to code it up. regards, tom lane
