On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:19 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> 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
