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
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 |