On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote: > Ah, I see I didn't cover the case in ProcSleep that you were originally on > about ... I'd just looked for existing references to log_min_messages > and client_min_messages.
Yeah, it seemed bad form to add that when you had just argued against it :-) > I think it's important to have the explicit check for elevel >= ERROR. > I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client, > although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to > is_log_level_output. Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I didn't (don't) have any other ideas. > Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to? Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep.
