On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:31 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2022-11-28 13:08:57 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 23:34, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Rather than explicitly use DEBUG1 everywhere I would have an > > > > #define CUSTODIAN_LOG_LEVEL LOG > > > > so we can run with it in LOG mode and then set it to DEBUG1 with a one > > > > line change in a later phase of Beta > > > > > > I can create a separate patch for this, but I don't think I've ever seen > > > this sort of thing before. > > > > Much of recovery is coded that way, for the same reason. > > I think that's not a good thing to copy without a lot more justification than > "some old code also does it that way". It's sometimes justified, but also > makes code harder to read (one doesn't know what it does without looking up > the #define, line length).
Yeah. If people need some of the log messages at a higher level during development, they can patch their own copies. I think there might be some argument for having a facility that lets you pick subsystems or even individual messages that you want to trace and pump up the log level for just those call sites. But I don't know exactly what that would look like, and I don't think inventing one-off mechanisms for particular cases is a good idea. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
