From: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: log_min_messages per backend type |
Date: | 2025-07-31 16:22:22 |
Message-ID: | ME0P300MB04455640FE9920AE11969872B627A@ME0P300MB0445.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 11:19, "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025, at 10:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Huh, the startup process is among the most crucial things to monitor?
>>
>
> Good point. Fixed.
>
> After collecting some suggestions, I'm attaching a new patch contains the
> following changes:
>
> - patch was rebased
> - include Alvaro's patch (v2-0001) [1] as a basis for this patch
> - add ioworker as new backend type
> - add startup as new backend type per Andres suggestion
> - small changes into documentation
>
>> I don't know what I think about the whole patch, but I do want to voice
>> *strong* opposition to duplicating a list of all backend types into multiple
>> places. It's already painfull enough to add a new backend type, without having
>> to pointlessly go around and manually add a new backend type to mulltiple
>> arrays that have completely predictable content.
>>
>
> I'm including Alvaro's patch as is just to make the CF bot happy and to
> illustrate how it would be if we adopt his solution to centralize the list of
> backend types. I think Alvaro's proposal overcomes the objection [2], right?
>
If we set the log level for all backend types, I don't think a generic log
level is necessary.
--
Regards,
Japin Li
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-07-31 16:50:11 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-07-31 15:30:25 | Re: Assertion failure in pgbench |