| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(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 01:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQOzFK_6=O0EHPrjAwQTYR9ukgHtXt1WCFsXRLvqHhXyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
>> most (if not all) of these things.
>
> I think we should consider having a flag for this behavior rather than
> changing the behavior across the board.
> But then again, maybe we should just change it.
>
> What do others think?
A GUC just for that looks like an overkill to me, this log is useful
when debugging. And one could always have its bgworker call elog by
itself at startup and before leaving to provide more or less similar
information.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-06-23 01:19:47 | Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-23 01:07:06 | Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5 |