On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah, I see I didn't cover the case in ProcSleep that you were originally on
> about ... I'd just looked for existing references to log_min_messages
> and client_min_messages.
Yeah, it seemed bad form to add that when you had just argued against it
:-)
> I think it's important to have the explicit check for elevel >= ERROR.
> I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client,
> although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to
> is_log_level_output.
Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I
didn't (don't) have any other ideas.
> Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to?
Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep.
