From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: log_min_messages per backend type |
Date: | 2025-03-05 16:40:55 |
Message-ID: | 001f81e3-2be8-46ad-9aee-1a761686712c@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-03-04 Tu 7:33 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> I think it should be acceptable to configure one global setting with
>> exceptions for particular backend types:
>>
>> log_min_messages = WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1
>>
>> Right now I think the code only accepts the unadorned log level if there
>> are no other items in the list. I think the proposal downthread is to
>> use the keyword ALL for this,
>>
>> log_min_messages = all:WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1 # I don't like this
>>
>> but I think it's inferior, because then "all" is not really "all", and I
>> think it would be different if I had said
>>
>> log_min_messages = autovacuum:DEBUG1, all:WARNING # I don't like this
>>
>> because it looks like the "all" entry should override the one I set for
>> autovacuum before, which frankly would not make sense to me.
>
> Good point. After reflection, I agree that "all" is not a good keyword.
> This patch turns backend type as optional so WARNING means apply this
> log level as a final step to the backend types that are not specified in
> the list.
>
>> So I think these two lines,
>>
>> log_min_messages = WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1
>> log_min_messages = autovacuum:DEBUG1, WARNING
>>
>> should behave identically and mean "set the level for autovacuum to
>> DEBUG1, and to any other backend type to WARNING.
>
> Done.
Just bikeshedding a bit ...
I'm not mad keen on this design. I think the value should be either a
single setting like "WARNING" or a set of type:setting pairs. I agree
that "all" is a bad name, but I think "default" would make sense.
I can live with it but I think this just looks a bit odd.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-05 16:42:48 | Re: Allow LISTEN on patterns |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-03-05 16:40:22 | Re: Use Python "Limited API" in PL/Python |