On 24 June 2015 at 03:23, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says.
>>
>> However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
>> wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
>> satisfied very well by just causing existing start/stop logging messages
>> to come out at higher priority. You're likely to be wanting to log other,
>> bgworker-specific, events, and so you'll probably end up writing a bunch
>> of your own elog calls anyway (which you'll eventually remove, #ifdef out,
>> or decrease the log levels of).
>
>
> FWIW, I have this problem *constantly* with plpgsql. I put RAISE DEBUGs in,
> but once you have those in enough places SET client_min_messages=debug
> becomes next to useless because of the huge volume of spew.
>
> What I'd like is a way to add an identifier to ereport/RAISE so you could
> turn on individual reports. If we had that we'd just make these particular
> ereports DEBUG1 and not worry about it because you could easily turn them on
> when needed.
So, log identifiers/classifiers, essentially.
Message numbers have been discussed before with regards to core and
rejected consistently. I don't think it's really come up in terms of
PLs and user-defined functions.
I've certainly had similar issues to you w.r.t. to debug messages from
user-level code, and wanted to be able to enable one particular log
line, all log output from a particular function, or all log output
from a particular extension / all functions in a schema.
I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal
though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all
in favour of just changing the log message, I think LOG is way too
high for something that's internal implementation detail.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
