From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups |
Date: | 2018-01-26 14:07:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYA0ddeivR+vgQr46Xq4Gf9qY2iad1kNxLMR5BX27h5JA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:25 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> I think you mean DEBUG1? It's already at DEBUG2.
>
> I considered using DEBUG1 but decided against it. The other exclusions
> will produce a limited amount of output because there are only a few of
> them. In the case of unlogged tables there could be any number of
> exclusions and I thought that was too noisy for DEBUG1.
+1. Even DEBUG2 seems pretty chatty for a message that just tells you
that something is working in an entirely expected fashion; consider
DEBUG3. Fortunately, base backups are not so common that this should
cause enormous log spam either way, but keeping the amount of debug
output down to a reasonable level is an important goal. Before
a43f1939d5dcd02f4df1604a68392332168e4be0, it wasn't really practical
to run a production server with log_min_messages lower than DEBUG2,
because you'd get so much log spam it would cause performance problems
(and maybe fill up the disk).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-01-26 14:13:54 | Updating timezone data to 2018c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-26 13:58:58 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down |