Re: elog(LOG), elog(DEBUG)

> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > > There's a TODO item to make elog(LOG) a separate level. I propose the
> > > name INFO. It would be identical to DEBUG in effect, only with a
> > > different label.
> >
> > This conveys nothing to my mind. How should I determine whether a given
> > elog call ought to use INFO or DEBUG?
>
> DEBUG is for messages intended to help locating and analyzing faults in
> the source code (i.e., debugging). Normal users don't need this during
> normal operation.
>
> INFO (or whatever the name) is for messages that administrator's might be
> interested in for auditing and tuning.

Seems like a good idea.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026