Re: postmaster -d option (was Re: [GENERAL] Relation 0 does not exist)

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> (Looks at code...) Ah. It looks like -d to the postmaster no longer
>> means anywhere near what it used to. Bruce --- compare the handling
>> of -d in the backend (postgres.c lines 1251ff) with its handling in
>> the postmaster (postmaster.c lines 444ff). Big difference. Are we
>> going to make these more alike? If so, which one do we like?

> I am sorry but I don't understand. They look like they both set
> server_min_messages.

Yeah, but postgres.c *also* sets log_connections, log_statement,
debug_print_parse, debug_print_plan, debug_print_rewritten depending
on the -d level. This behavior is not random; it's an attempt to
reproduce the effects of the historical -d switch. The postmaster.c
code is blowing off all those considerations.

> *** 1275,1288 ****
> if (atoi(optarg) >= 5)
> SetConfigOption("debug_print_rewritten", "true", ctx, gucsource);
> }
> - else
> -
> - /*
> - * -d 0 allows user to prevent postmaster debug
> - * from propagating to backend.
> - */
> - SetConfigOption("server_min_messages", "notice",
> - ctx, gucsource);
> }
> break;

I think you are deleting your own code there ... why?

regards, tom lane