2015-06-26 17:28 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Nasby
> wrote:
> >> I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal
> >> though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all
> >> in favour of just changing the log message, I think
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal
>> though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all
>> in favour of just changing the log message, I think LOG is way too
>> high for something that's internal
On 6/23/15 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I've certainly had similar issues to you w.r.t. to debug messages from
user-level code, and wanted to be able to enable one particular log
line, all log output from a particular function, or all log output
from a particular extension / all functions in a sc
On 24 June 2015 at 03:23, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says.
>>
>> However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
>> wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is un
On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says.
However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
satisfied very well by just causing existing
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
> > wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
> > satisfied very well by just causing existing start/stop logging messages
>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains
>>> unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to
>>> DEBUG1. That has the advantage of not breaking bac
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains
>> unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to
>> DEBUG1. That has the advantage of not breaking backward
>> compatibility. But I'm not sure whether anyone
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> >> 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.
> >
> > I have not any
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
>> 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.
>
> I have not any problem with bg worker flag. The onl
2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier 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
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier 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 t
Michael Paquier 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
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
> ch
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 6/14/15 12:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers
>> intensively for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log
>> level - and I am thinking so parallel computing needs it due h
On 6/14/15 12:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers
intensively for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log
level - and I am thinking so parallel computing needs it due high number
of created and finished workers.
It should b
Hi
I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers intensively
for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log level - and I am
thinking so parallel computing needs it due high number of created and
finished workers.
It should be fixed in 9.5 - because it is limiting fact
17 matches
Mail list logo
