On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:57:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 06:59:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Does that ameliorate your concern, or do you still want it to be DEBUG1?
>
> > I think of the "implicit sequence" messages we moved from NOTICE to DEBU
Noah Misch writes:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 06:59:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I'm not sure that the chattiness argument is relevant, because no
>> message will be emitted at all unless you're switching to some log target
>> different from the postmaster's initial stderr. So the message
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 06:59:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:32:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This patch arranges to emit a hint message when/if we switch away from
> >> logging to the original postmaster stderr during startup. There are two
> >
On 08/09/2013 03:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In principle I see the risk, but I don't think I've ever seen an actual
> report of someone getting confused this way by an on-the-fly logging
> parameter change. Whereas there are numerous examples in the archives
> of people not realizing that "pg_ctl -l
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:32:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This patch arranges to emit a hint message when/if we switch away from
>> logging to the original postmaster stderr during startup. There are two
>> cases to cover: we're still using LOG_DESTINATION_STDERR but redir
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:32:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The attached patch is motivated by
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cajyqwwryt9rmbzs-sh6ucr1otg4joxqkdf-fkoyp6pv12t0...@mail.gmail.com
> This patch arranges to emit a hint message when/if we switch away from
> logging to the origina
Josh Berkus writes:
> Tom,
>> I thought about trying to leave similar breadcrumbs if the logging
>> parameters are changed while the postmaster is running, but it would add a
>> fair amount of complication to the patch, and I'm not sure there's a lot
>> of value in it. On-the-fly logging paramete
Josh, Tom,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> > Does this rise to the level of a usability bug that ought to be
> > back-patched? As I said, we've seen this type of thinko multiple
> > times before.
>
> Hmmm. On the one hand, I can't see the harm in it. On the other hand,
> I'm relucta
Tom,
> I thought about trying to leave similar breadcrumbs if the logging
> parameters are changed while the postmaster is running, but it would add a
> fair amount of complication to the patch, and I'm not sure there's a lot
> of value in it. On-the-fly logging parameter changes don't happen wit
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Does this rise to the level of a usability bug that ought to be
>> back-patched? As I said, we've seen this type of thinko multiple
>> times before.
> For this, I'd say to not back-patch it; we seem to have had enough fun
> with c
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Thoughts? In particular, anyone want to bikeshed on the message wording?
Looks like a good idea to me and the wording looks fine to me.
> Does this rise to the level of a usability bug that ought to be
> back-patched? As I said, we've seen this type of t
The attached patch is motivated by
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cajyqwwryt9rmbzs-sh6ucr1otg4joxqkdf-fkoyp6pv12t0...@mail.gmail.com
in which it appears that Oliver Elphick forgot to look in the configured
log_directory directory for log output, and instead examined only the file
that postmas
12 matches
Mail list logo
