On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> 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.
Agreed. > 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. Not sure I agree with this - what I think the problem is here is we need to make a clear distinction between recoverable errors and unrecoverable errors. > @Robert - I'd point out that the behaviour of archive_cleanup_command > and recovery_end_command is broken as a result of this discussion. :-( How so? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers