Re: client_min_messages in dumps? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: client_min_messages in dumps?
Date
Msg-id 200407061436.i66Ea9l24877@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: client_min_messages in dumps?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: client_min_messages in dumps?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I agree changing some of those noiser notices would be good.  I think
> > the best idea would be to add a client_min_messages level of novice for
> > them.
> 
> Yes ...
> 
> > In fact, looking at the code, I see that the INFO level is almost
> > never used in our code.  Perhaps we should just downgrade them to
> > INFO-level messages.
> 
> No!  That is not a downgrade --- INFO messages are *not suppressable*.

Uh, postgresql.conf has:#client_min_messages = notice   # Values, in order of decreasing detail:
       #   debug5, debug4, debug3, debug2, debug1,                                #   log, info, notice, warning,
error#log_min_messages= notice      # Values, in order of decreasing detail:                                #   debug5,
debug4,debug3, debug2, debug1,                                #   info, notice, warning, error, log, fatal,
                  #   panic
 

I also don't see LOG used much in the code at all.  It seems to be used
mostly by VACUUM and ANALYZE.  Seems something is wrong.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: client_min_messages in dumps?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All