>I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV. Under common paradigms you are right, but if we talk of line-by-line streaming with subsequent processing, then it's a show stopper. Of course, some log aggregators have buffers for that and can do Multiline parsing on that buffer, but 1. Not all log aggregators support it 2. Building a parser which reliably detects Multiline logs AND is easy on resources is probably not something a normal person can achieve quickly.
So normally CSV is fine but for log streaming it's not the best, nor the most standard compliant way. El sáb., 14 abr. 2018, 10:51 a.m., Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> escribió: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > > I think a suite of json_to_* utilities would be a good bit more > > helpful in this regard than changing our human-eye-consumable logs. We > > already have human-eye-consumable logs by default. What we don't > > have, and increasingly do want, is a log format that's really easy on > > machines. > > I'm dubious that JSON is "easier on machines" than CSV. > > regards, tom lane >
