Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I would like to provide the same set of options w.r.t. messages
>> logged in the server log. Here there is an additional frammish that
>> could be imagined, ie, more detail for more-serious errors. Any
>> opinions about what it should look like?
> Not sure exactly what you're asking for here. If you're asking what
> additional detail should be included for more serious errors,
No, I was asking whether anyone thought such behavior should be
user-controllable, and if so exactly how the controlling GUC variables
should be defined.
One way I could imagine doing it is to split log_min_messages into
three variables, along the lines of "minimum message level to produce
a TERSE report", "minimum message level to produce a DEFAULT report",
and "minimum message level to produce a VERBOSE report". This seems
a bit inelegant though. Better ideas anyone?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2003-06-26 00:44:38|
|Subject: Re: Two weeks to feature freeze|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-06-26 00:30:52|
|Subject: Re: RServ patch to support multiple slaves (sorta)|