On 2016-03-29 12:28:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > David Steele wrote: > >> On 3/29/16 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Repurposing COMMERROR is definitely starting to seem like a low-impact > >>> solution compared to these others. Under what circumstances would you > >>> be wanting hide-from-client with an elevel different from LOG, anyway? > > > So audit records would use COMMERROR? That sounds really bad to me. > > My proposal would be to invent a new elevel macro, maybe LOG_ONLY, > for this purpose. But under the hood it'd be the same as COMMERROR.
A couple years back I proposed making thinks like COMERROR into flags | ed into elevel, rather than distinct levels. I still think that's a better approach; and it doesn't force us to forgo using distinct log levels. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
