Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client, >> although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to >> is_log_level_output.
> Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I > didn't (don't) have any other ideas. I never cared that much for "is_log_level_output" either. Thinking about renaming it to "should_output_to_log()", and then the new function would be "should_output_to_client()". >> Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to? > Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep. Will do. regards, tom lane