On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I'm fine with that. I don't remember whether I put that in or whether it
> came from the original patch author(s). Either way, I assume the reason was
> to explain why the message appeared on stderr rather than the CSVlog. Now we
> have a couple of years of experience with CSVlog I agree it's not needed (if
> it were we'd probably have had more complaints like yours anyway).
ISTM the danger is that someone looks at the regular logs and isn't
aware that some messages went to someplace else. In which case
bleating t
to the someplace else is unhelpful. Perhaps it would be more useful if
it set a flag and then once the regular logs are set up you output a
regular warning that some errors were generated prior to switching and
were sent to stderr.
--
greg
