Re: warning message in standby

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane 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...)

This looks like a significant issue to me.

Code has been written for 9.0 that assumes WARNING > LOG. I've pointed
out two places in SR code, I'm pretty sure there are others.

There is also lots of pre-existing code where we run the same code in a
backend and in a server process, for example autovacuum. In those cases,
all the WARNINGs issued in vacuum.c, for example, will all be filtered
by the current log-level scheme.

LOG is already over-used and so anything said at that level is drowned.
In many areas of code we cannot use a higher level without trauma. That
is a problem since we have no way to separate the truly important from
the barely interesting.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com