Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Date
Msg-id 202111051450.umrp37mdbeez@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
Responses Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2021-Nov-05, Michael Banck wrote:

> Well that, and the fact those distinctions are only done for user-
> facing events, whereas it seems to me we only distinguish between LOG
> and PANIC for server-facing events; maybe we need one or more
> additional levels here in order to make it easier for admins to see the
> really bad things that are happening?

I think what we need is an orthogonal classification.  "This FATAL here
is routine; that ERROR there denotes a severe problem in the underlying
OS".  Additional levels won't help with that.  Maybe adding the concept
of "severity" or "criticality" to some messages would be useful to
decide what to keep and what to discard.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Uno puede defenderse de los ataques; contra los elogios se esta indefenso"



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Next
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname