Re: elog(LOG), elog(DEBUG)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog(LOG), elog(DEBUG)
Date: 2001-05-05 14:44:31
Message-ID: 5446.989073871@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> There's a TODO item to make elog(LOG) a separate level. I propose the
> name INFO. It would be identical to DEBUG in effect, only with a
> different label.

This conveys nothing to my mind. How should I determine whether a given
elog call ought to use INFO or DEBUG?

> The stricter distinction between DEBUG and INFO would also yield the
> possibility of optionally sending DEBUG output to the frontend, as has
> been requested a few times.

It's not a "strict distinction" unless we have a clear policy as to what
the different levels mean. I think setting and documenting that policy
is the hard part of the task.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-05-05 14:52:23 Re: GiST indexing problems...
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2001-05-05 14:00:50 Re: GiST indexing problems...