On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > On 2020-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> By the way, it strikes me that you could just do nothing as long as > >> (log_min_messages > DEBUG1), so you could encapsulate most of the > >> logic that plays with the lock tag using that. > > > Good idea, done. > > I'm less sure that that's a good idea. It embeds knowledge here that > should not exist outside elog.c; moreover, I'm not entirely sure that > it's even correct, given the nonlinear ranking of log_min_messages.
Well, we already do this in a number of places. But I can get behind this: > Maybe it'd be a good idea to have elog.c expose a new function > along the lines of "bool message_level_is_interesting(int elevel)" > to support this and similar future optimizations in a less fragile way.
