Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I agree that we don't need YAGUC here, particularly not one that applies
> > indiscriminately to all bgworkers. I'd vote for just decreasing the log
> > level. The current coding is appropriate for a facility that's basically
> > experimental; but as it moves towards being something that would be used
> > routinely in production, the argument for being noisy in the log gets
> > weaker and weaker.
>
> 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.

Pavel

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>