Re: warning message in standby

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:11 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> 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.

Nobody is arguing with what Tom has said about log levels.

The problem is that LOG already has many things like performance logging
which aren't a problem as all. So we need a level between LOG and FATAL
to draw anyone's attention.

@Robert - I'd point out that the behaviour of archive_cleanup_command
and recovery_end_command is broken as a result of this discussion.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com