Re: client_min_messages in dumps?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: client_min_messages in dumps?
Date: 2004-07-06 14:36:09
Message-ID: 200407061436.i66Ea9l24877@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I agree changing some of those noiser notices would be good. I think
> > the best idea would be to add a client_min_messages level of novice for
> > them.
>
> Yes ...
>
> > In fact, looking at the code, I see that the INFO level is almost
> > never used in our code. Perhaps we should just downgrade them to
> > INFO-level messages.
>
> No! That is not a downgrade --- INFO messages are *not suppressable*.

Uh, postgresql.conf has:

#client_min_messages = notice # Values, in order of decreasing detail:
# debug5, debug4, debug3, debug2, debug1,
# log, info, notice, warning, error

#log_min_messages = notice # Values, in order of decreasing detail:
# debug5, debug4, debug3, debug2, debug1,
# info, notice, warning, error, log, fatal,
# panic

I also don't see LOG used much in the code at all. It seems to be used
mostly by VACUUM and ANALYZE. Seems something is wrong.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-06 15:37:18 Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-06 14:10:14 Re: ODBC Developers