From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: trace_recovery_messages |
Date: | 2010-08-18 19:23:02 |
Message-ID: | 9048.1282159382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The explanation of trace_recovery_messages in the document
> is inconsistent with the definition of it in guc.c.
Setting the default to WARNING is confusing and useless, because
there are no trace_recovery calls with that debug level. IMO the
default setting should be LOG, which makes trace_recovery() a clear
no-op (rather than not clearly a no-op). There is circumstantial
evidence in the code that this was the original intention:
int trace_recovery_messages = LOG;
The documentation of the parameter is about as clear as mud, too.
We need to explain what it does rather than just copy-and-paste
a lot of text from log_min_messages.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-18 19:53:31 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-18 19:07:59 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |