| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Maldonado <joe(dot)maldonado(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum daemon question... |
| Date: | 2005-11-09 21:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | 19439.1131571556@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Joe Maldonado <joe(dot)maldonado(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree...for now while I'm developing and debugging my application I can
> have the logging be that verbose...I agree that these should be handled as
> info messages, since they are invaluable in investigating problems.
This would be a pretty bad idea IMHO, since it would lead to bloating
the logs with autovacuum progress messages by default --- and whatever
you may think about it, I really doubt that the average DBA will want
those messages there all the time.
I wonder whether it would be practical to let the autovacuum daemon have
its own value of log_min_messages. The alternative to that seems to be
to invent a new log severity level just for autovacuum, which is pretty
gross (especially since it's not obvious how it should sort relative to
LOG and DEBUG1).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Maldonado | 2005-11-09 21:34:50 | Re: autovacuum daemon question... |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-09 20:29:29 | Re: Xeon vs Opteron - tests and questions |