Re: warning message in standby

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Should I be downgrading Hot Standby breakages to LOG? That will
>>> certainly help high availability as well.
>>
>> If a message is being issued in a non-user-connected session, there
>> is basically not a lot of point in WARNING or below.  It should either
>> be LOG, or ERROR/FATAL/PANIC (which are probably all about the same
>> thing in the startup process...)
>
> I think Simon's point here is the same as mine - LOG isn't too high -
> it's too low.

log_min_messages = warning # values in order of decreasing detail:
# notice
# warning
# error
# log
# fatal
# panic

I've left out some lines, but the ones I left are in the right order and
there's nothing missing in the range. So WARNING < ERROR < LOG < FATAL,
right?

If that's the case, I guess Tom's right, once more, saying that LOG is
fine here. If we want to be more subtle than that, we'd need to revise
each and every error message and attribute it the right level, which it
probably have already anyway.

Regards.
--
dim