On 8/15/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The consistent prefix idea sounds good; does "logging_enable" jive > > with your proposal? > > I dislike it. I claim that logging to plain stderr (without the > syslogger process) is still logging. Logging to syslog (which also > doen't need the syslogger process) is *definitely* logging. Something > named "logging_enable" would suggest to the normal person that without > it turned on, you'll get *nothing*. > > I'm not wedded to "collector" per se, but you really cannot escape the > fact that there is one more concept in here than you wish to admit. > I think that reflecting the existence of a collector process in the GUC > names makes things clearer, not less clear.
Fair enough. I just took a fresh look at postmaster.conf, and indeed the logging variables are more complex than I gave them credit for with "logging_enable". Retracted. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match