On 2 Září 2011, 17:08, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2011 5:02 PM, "Tomas Vondra" <tv@fuzzy.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> >> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the
>> >> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I
>> >> guess.
>> >
>> > Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution. Make it a
>> > configuration parameter.
>>
>> Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that
>> drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint)
>> or
>> detailed log (with a lower log level).
>>
>> In the first patch I've proposed a new GUC (used to set how often the
>> info
>> should be logged or disable it), but Josh Berkus pointed out that I
>> should
>> get rid of it if I can. Which is what I've done in the following
>> patches.
>
> Well, josh doesn't speak for everybody ;-)
Sure, but I think the effort not to have a zillion of GUC makes sense.
> Maybe one way could be to change log_checkpoints into an enum of "off, on,
> debug "(values open for bikeshedding of course)
Yes, that's actually one of the solutions I'd prefer. Not sure why I
rejected it ...
Tomas
