On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 02:16, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? >> >> No. That was an intentional decision. LOG is for stuff that we >> really want to get logged, in most cases. ERROR is very often not >> that interesting, and WARNING even more so. > > I think the decision is in hacker's viewpoint. Many times I see > DBAs are interested in only WARNING, ERROR and FATAL, but often > ignores LOG messages. We should use WARNING level for really important > message -- and also priority of WARNINGs should be higher than LOGs. > > Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important > activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe > we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the > latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs.
I think the requirement you're talking about is the same one I was when I said I wanted a "logging source" thing. Which is basically that an ERROR log from a user query or stored procedure is often not interesting at all to the DBA - but it is to the developer. But an ERROR log from the background writer or a low-level routine is *very* interesting to the DBA. Basically, the log levels mean completely different things depending on where they're coming in from. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
