On 2 Září 2011, 17:08, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sep 2, 2011 5:02 PM, "Tomas Vondra" <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: >> >> On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the >> >> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I >> >> guess. >> > >> > Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution. Make it a >> > configuration parameter. >> >> Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that >> drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) >> or >> detailed log (with a lower log level). >> >> In the first patch I've proposed a new GUC (used to set how often the >> info >> should be logged or disable it), but Josh Berkus pointed out that I >> should >> get rid of it if I can. Which is what I've done in the following >> patches. > > Well, josh doesn't speak for everybody ;-)
Sure, but I think the effort not to have a zillion of GUC makes sense. > Maybe one way could be to change log_checkpoints into an enum of "off, on, > debug "(values open for bikeshedding of course) Yes, that's actually one of the solutions I'd prefer. Not sure why I rejected it ... Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
