2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > >>>> Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for > reporting > >>>> most (if not all) of these things. > > > >>> I think we should consider having a flag for this behavior rather than > >>> changing the behavior across the board. > >>> But then again, maybe we should just change it. > >>> > >>> What do others think? > > > >> A GUC just for that looks like an overkill to me, this log is useful > >> when debugging. And one could always have its bgworker call elog by > >> itself at startup and before leaving to provide more or less similar > >> information. > > > > I agree that we don't need YAGUC here, particularly not one that applies > > indiscriminately to all bgworkers. I'd vote for just decreasing the log > > level. The current coding is appropriate for a facility that's basically > > experimental; but as it moves towards being something that would be used > > routinely in production, the argument for being noisy in the log gets > > weaker and weaker. > > I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC. > BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just > change it. >
I have not any problem with bg worker flag. The only question is, what should be by default. Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
