Re: [HACKERS] Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 02:16, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Itagaki Takahiro writes: >> > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? >> >> No. That was an intentional decision. LOG is for stuff that we >> really want to get logged, in most cases. ERROR is very often not >> that interesting, and WARNING even more so. > > I think the decision is in hacker's viewpoint. Many times I see > DBAs are interested in only WARNING, ERROR and FATAL, but often > ignores LOG messages. We should use WARNING level for really important > message -- and also priority of WARNINGs should be higher than LOGs. > > Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important > activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe > we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the > latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs. I think the requirement you're talking about is the same one I was when I said I wanted a "logging source" thing. Which is basically that an ERROR log from a user query or stored procedure is often not interesting at all to the DBA - but it is to the developer. But an ERROR log from the background writer or a low-level routine is *very* interesting to the DBA. Basically, the log levels mean completely different things depending on where they're coming in from. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:16 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important > activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe > we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the > latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs. Ideally, LOG messages are messages that you explicitly requested using various log_* parameters. If you need more control, we could conceivably add more of those. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
Tom Lane wrote: > Itagaki Takahiro writes: > > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? > > No. That was an intentional decision. LOG is for stuff that we > really want to get logged, in most cases. ERROR is very often not > that interesting, and WARNING even more so. I think the decision is in hacker's viewpoint. Many times I see DBAs are interested in only WARNING, ERROR and FATAL, but often ignores LOG messages. We should use WARNING level for really important message -- and also priority of WARNINGs should be higher than LOGs. Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
Itagaki Takahiro writes: > LOG messages have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING > in log_min_messages (PANIC > FATAL > LOG > ERROR > WARNING) now. > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? No. That was an intentional decision. LOG is for stuff that we really want to get logged, in most cases. ERROR is very often not that interesting, and WARNING even more so. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
