Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> If you would prefer LOG down near INFO in the server message levels,
> >> please post the idea and let's get some more comments from folks.
>
> > LOG should be below WARNING, in any case. Perhaps between NOTICE and
> > WARNING, but I'm not so sure about that.
>
> I think the ordering Bruce developed is appropriate for logging.
> There are good reasons to think that per-query ERRORs are less
> interesting than LOG events for admin logging purposes.
OK.
> The real problem here is that in the initdb context, we are really
> dealing with an *interactive* situation, where LOG events ought to
> be treated in the client-oriented scale --- but the backend does
> not know this, it thinks it is emitting messages to the system log.
>
> I'm thinking that the mistake is in hard-wiring one scale of message
> interest to control the frontend output and another one to the "log"
> (stderr/syslog) output. Perhaps we should have a notion of "interactive"
> message priorities vs "logging" message priorities, and allow either
> scale to be used to control which messages are dispatched to any
> message destination.
Can't we just 'grep -v '^LOG:' to remove the log display from initdb?
Seems pretty simple.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
