Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
Date: 2009-09-14 05:57:29
Message-ID: 1252907849.30236.2.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:16 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important
> activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe
> we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the
> latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs.

Ideally, LOG messages are messages that you explicitly requested using
various log_* parameters. If you need more control, we could
conceivably add more of those.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-09-14 06:12:13 [PATCH] Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2311)
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-09-14 05:34:59 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types