| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(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 17:33:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20150623173322.GB3289@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
> > wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
> > satisfied very well by just causing existing start/stop logging messages
> > to come out at higher priority. You're likely to be wanting to log other,
> > bgworker-specific, events, and so you'll probably end up writing a bunch
> > of your own elog calls anyway (which you'll eventually remove, #ifdef out,
> > or decrease the log levels of).
>
> Yeah. So let's just change it.
+1
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Piotr Stefaniak | 2015-06-23 17:54:53 | Re: NULL passed as an argument to memcmp() in parse_func.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-23 17:22:37 | Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5 |