Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That would confuse people terribly, and it *would* endanger our ability
>> to see what was happening, 254 times out of 255.
> That's my feeling too, just wanted to check it still made sense for
> y'all.
Just to clarify: I don't object to lowering "successfully archived"
messages to DEBUG1, if the field consensus is that it's too chatty.
What I didn't like was the idea of logging some events but not other
identical events.
regards, tom lane