Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5
Date: 2015-06-23 01:47:42
Message-ID: 12659.1435024062@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
>>> most (if not all) of these things.

>> I think we should consider having a flag for this behavior rather than
>> changing the behavior across the board.
>> But then again, maybe we should just change it.
>>
>> What do others think?

> A GUC just for that looks like an overkill to me, this log is useful
> when debugging. And one could always have its bgworker call elog by
> itself at startup and before leaving to provide more or less similar
> information.

I agree that we don't need YAGUC here, particularly not one that applies
indiscriminately to all bgworkers. I'd vote for just decreasing the log
level. The current coding is appropriate for a facility that's basically
experimental; but as it moves towards being something that would be used
routinely in production, the argument for being noisy in the log gets
weaker and weaker.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kouhei Kaigai 2015-06-23 01:55:20 Re: upper planner path-ification
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-06-23 01:19:47 Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation