Re: warning message in standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: warning message in standby
Date
Msg-id 878w6h8uha.fsf@hi-media-techno.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: warning message in standby  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: warning message in standby
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>>> Should I be downgrading Hot Standby breakages to LOG? That will
>>> certainly help high availability as well.
>>
>> If a message is being issued in a non-user-connected session, there
>> is basically not a lot of point in WARNING or below.  It should either
>> be LOG, or ERROR/FATAL/PANIC (which are probably all about the same
>> thing in the startup process...)
>
> I think Simon's point here is the same as mine - LOG isn't too high -
> it's too low.

log_min_messages = warning        # values in order of decreasing detail:                #   notice                #
warning               #   error                #   log                #   fatal                #   panic 

I've left out some lines, but the ones I left are in the right order and
there's nothing missing in the range. So WARNING < ERROR < LOG < FATAL,
right?

If that's the case, I guess Tom's right, once more, saying that LOG is
fine here. If we want to be more subtle than that, we'd need to revise
each and every error message and attribute it the right level, which it
probably have already anyway.

Regards.
--
dim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lacey Powers
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Command Prompt 8.4.4 PRMs compiled with debug/assert enabled
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 9.1 tentative timeline