Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 02:16, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ?
>>
>> No.  That was an intentional decision.  LOG is for stuff that we
>> really want to get logged, in most cases.  ERROR is very often not
>> that interesting, and WARNING even more so.
>
> I think the decision is in hacker's viewpoint. Many times I see
> DBAs are interested in only WARNING, ERROR and FATAL, but often
> ignores LOG messages. We should use WARNING level for really important
> message -- and also priority of WARNINGs should be higher than LOGs.
>
> Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important
> activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe
> we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the
> latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs.

I think the requirement you're talking about is the same one I was
when I said I wanted a "logging source" thing. Which is basically that
an ERROR log from a user query or stored procedure is often not
interesting at all to the DBA - but it is to the developer. But an
ERROR log from the background writer or a low-level routine is *very*
interesting to the DBA. Basically, the log levels mean completely
different things depending on where they're coming in from.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/