From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Updating psql for features of new FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2003-06-26 00:41:00 |
Message-ID: | 19952.1056588060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I would like to provide the same set of options w.r.t. messages
>> logged in the server log. Here there is an additional frammish that
>> could be imagined, ie, more detail for more-serious errors. Any
>> opinions about what it should look like?
> Not sure exactly what you're asking for here. If you're asking what
> additional detail should be included for more serious errors,
No, I was asking whether anyone thought such behavior should be
user-controllable, and if so exactly how the controlling GUC variables
should be defined.
One way I could imagine doing it is to split log_min_messages into
three variables, along the lines of "minimum message level to produce
a TERSE report", "minimum message level to produce a DEFAULT report",
and "minimum message level to produce a VERBOSE report". This seems
a bit inelegant though. Better ideas anyone?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-06-26 00:44:38 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-26 00:30:52 | Re: RServ patch to support multiple slaves (sorta) |