Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
