| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logging parallel worker draught |
| Date: | 2023-05-01 16:33:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob91fKoE1QoTqGomBTUZT9JcXwFYrPEmm3arapak-WTsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 7:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think introducing a GUC for this is a good idea. We can
> directly output this message in the server log either at LOG or DEBUG1
> level.
Why not? It seems like something some people might want to log and
others not. Running the whole server at DEBUG1 to get this information
doesn't seem like a suitable answer.
What I was wondering was whether we would be better off putting this
into the statistics collector, vs. doing it via logging. Both
approaches seem to have pros and cons.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2023-05-01 16:54:27 | Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-05-01 16:16:10 | Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing |