Re: log_min_messages per backend type

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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