| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 15:24:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYHKqxUwn=wz8buxu=_Y4UihDeoBDNaMKz7W6KsuFJ2Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC.
>> BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just
>> change it.
>
> I have not any problem with bg worker flag. The only question is, what
> should be by default.
Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains
unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to
DEBUG1. That has the advantage of not breaking backward
compatibility. But I'm not sure whether anyone cares if we just break
it, and it's certainly simpler without the flag.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-23 15:27:36 | Re: Hash index creation warning |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-06-23 14:53:06 | Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5 |