Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2020-Sep-15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After further thought, I concluded that's a clearly superior solution,
>> so 0001 attached does it like that. After noting that the enum values
>> are in the opposite direction from how I thought they went, I realized
>> that "increase_l
On 2020-Sep-15, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Alternatively, we might consider inventing an additional logging.c
> > function pg_logging_increase_level() with the obvious semantics, and
> > make the various programs just call that when they see a -v switch.
> > That would be a slightly bigger pat
I wrote:
> Alternatively, we might consider inventing an additional logging.c
> function pg_logging_increase_level() with the obvious semantics, and
> make the various programs just call that when they see a -v switch.
> That would be a slightly bigger patch, but it would more easily support
> prog
pg_dump et al have some low-level debug log messages that commit
cc8d41511 converted to pg_log_debug() calls, replacing the previous
one-off logging verbosity system that was there. However, these
calls are dead code as things stand, because there is no way to set
__pg_log_level high enough to get
