| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: simplifying emode_for_corrupt_record |
| Date: | 2010-06-28 19:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikpfpNLirdyxjDAlc-nXwFN_khIVjfHIsJIdLER@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I spend a little bit of time analyzing this today and it appears to me
> that all of the calls to emode_for_corrupt_record() arrive via
> ReadRecord(), which itself takes an emode argument that is always
> passed by the caller as either LOG or PANIC. Therefore, the effect of
> the first "if" test in emode_for_corrupt_record() is to reduce the
> logging level of messages coming from SR or the archive from LOG to
> WARNING. (WARNING would be higher in an interactive session, but not
> here, per Tom's point.) This seems clearly a bad idea, so I propose
> to rip it out, which simplifies this function considerably. Proposed
> patch attached.
Since this appears to be non-controversial, I'm going to go ahead and commit it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-28 19:44:41 | Re: Propose Beta3 for July |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-28 19:41:02 | Re: Propose Beta3 for July |