On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:11 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >>> Should I be downgrading Hot Standby breakages to LOG? That will > >>> certainly help high availability as well. > >> > >> If a message is being issued in a non-user-connected session, there > >> is basically not a lot of point in WARNING or below. It should either > >> be LOG, or ERROR/FATAL/PANIC (which are probably all about the same > >> thing in the startup process...) > > > > I think Simon's point here is the same as mine - LOG isn't too high - > > it's too low. > > log_min_messages = warning # values in order of decreasing detail: > # notice > # warning > # error > # log > # fatal > # panic > > I've left out some lines, but the ones I left are in the right order and > there's nothing missing in the range. So WARNING < ERROR < LOG < FATAL, > right? > > If that's the case, I guess Tom's right, once more, saying that LOG is > fine here. If we want to be more subtle than that, we'd need to revise > each and every error message and attribute it the right level, which it > probably have already anyway.
Nobody is arguing with what Tom has said about log levels. The problem is that LOG already has many things like performance logging which aren't a problem as all. So we need a level between LOG and FATAL to draw anyone's attention. @Robert - I'd point out that the behaviour of archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_command is broken as a result of this discussion. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
