On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>>> Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
>>>> most (if not all) of these things.
>
>>> I think we should consider having a flag for this behavior rather than
>>> changing the behavior across the board.
>>> But then again, maybe we should just change it.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>
>> A GUC just for that looks like an overkill to me, this log is useful
>> when debugging. And one could always have its bgworker call elog by
>> itself at startup and before leaving to provide more or less similar
>> information.
>
> I agree that we don't need YAGUC here, particularly not one that applies
> indiscriminately to all bgworkers. I'd vote for just decreasing the log
> level. The current coding is appropriate for a facility that's basically
> experimental; but as it moves towards being something that would be used
> routinely in production, the argument for being noisy in the log gets
> weaker and weaker.
I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC.
BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just
change it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
