On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here are some minor comments:
>>
>> + ereport(LOG,
>> + (errmsg("ignoring \"%s\" file because no
>> \"%s\" file exists",
>> + TABLESPACE_MAP, BACKUP_LABEL_FILE),
>> + errdetail("could not rename file \"%s\" to
>> \"%s\": %m",
>> + TABLESPACE_MAP, TABLESPACE_MAP_OLD)));
>>
>> WARNING is better than LOG here because it indicates a problematic case?
>
> No, that's not the right distinction. Remember that, when sending
> messages to the client, WARNING > LOG, and when sending messages to
> the log, LOG > WARNING. So messages that a user is more likely to
> care about than the administrator should be logged at WARNNG; those
> that the administrator is more likely to care about should be LOG. I
> think LOG is clearly the appropriate thing here.
Isn't this "rule" confusing the administrators? ISTM that the administrators
would intuitively and literally pay more attention to WARNING than LOG.
Also there are already some warning messages with WARNING level that
the administrators rather than the clients should care about. For example,
the warning message which output when archive_command fails.
ereport(WARNING,
(errmsg("archiving transaction log file
\"%s\" failed too many times, will try again later",
xlog)));
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
