| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: elog(LOG), elog(DEBUG) |
| Date: | 2001-05-05 14:44:31 |
| Message-ID: | 5446.989073871@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
> The stricter distinction between DEBUG and INFO would also yield the
> possibility of optionally sending DEBUG output to the frontend, as has
> been requested a few times.
It's not a "strict distinction" unless we have a clear policy as to what
the different levels mean. I think setting and documenting that policy
is the hard part of the task.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-05 14:52:23 | Re: GiST indexing problems... |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2001-05-05 14:00:50 | Re: GiST indexing problems... |