On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 09:02, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:36:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > log_backtrace speaks a bit more to me as a name for this stuff because > > it logs a backtrace. Now, there is consistency on HEAD as well > > because these GUCs are all prefixed with "backtrace_". Would > > something like a backtrace_mode where we have an enum rather than a > > boolean be better?
I guess it depends what we want consistency with. If we want naming consistency with all other LOGGING_WHAT GUCs or if we want naming consistency with the current backtrace_functions GUC. I personally like log_backtrace slightly better, but I don't have a super strong opinion on this either. Another option could be plain "backtrace". > > One thing would be to redesign the existing GUC as > > having two values on HEAD as of: > > - "none", to log nothing. > > - "internal", to log backtraces for internal errors. If we go for backtrace_mode or backtrace, then I think I'd prefer "disabled"/"off" and "internal_error" for these values. > The rest of the proposals had better happen as a v18 discussion, where > extending this GUC is a benefit. agreed
