| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
| Date: | 2021-11-05 14:50:30 |
| Message-ID: | 202111051450.umrp37mdbeez@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Nov-05, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well that, and the fact those distinctions are only done for user-
> facing events, whereas it seems to me we only distinguish between LOG
> and PANIC for server-facing events; maybe we need one or more
> additional levels here in order to make it easier for admins to see the
> really bad things that are happening?
I think what we need is an orthogonal classification. "This FATAL here
is routine; that ERROR there denotes a severe problem in the underlying
OS". Additional levels won't help with that. Maybe adding the concept
of "severity" or "criticality" to some messages would be useful to
decide what to keep and what to discard.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Uno puede defenderse de los ataques; contra los elogios se esta indefenso"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-05 14:58:15 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-11-05 14:45:51 | Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing |