On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:19 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you mean that we do the same as WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY in this patch, and use a separate patch to fix them together?
I'm not sure I want to fix it at all; it keeps the code coherent even
if someone later decides they really want to override the CLIENT_ONLY
directive for some reason.
On the WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY thread [1], Andres said
> I don't think it needs to be done right now, but I again want to suggest
> it'd be nice if we split log levels into a bitmask. If we bits, separate
> from the log level, for do-not-log-to-client and do-not-log-to-server
> some of this code would imo look nicer.
and I think I agree that would be a good way for future improvement.
--Jacob
[1] https://postgr.es/m/20201228191428.p5bhcvd4ixsuyifd%40alap3.anarazel.de
