On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
