| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add new error_action COPY ON_ERROR "log" |
| Date: | 2024-03-07 07:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | Zelrqq-pkfkvsjPn@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 12:48:12PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I'm okay with it. But, help me understand it better. We want the
> 'log_verbosity' clause to have options 'default' and 'verbose', right?
> And, later it can also be extended to contain all the LOG levels like
> 'notice', 'error', 'info' , 'debugX' etc. depending on the need,
> right?
You could, or names that have some status like row_details, etc.
> One more thing, how does it sound using both verbosity and verbose in
> log_verbosity verbose something like below? Is this okay?
There's some history with this pattern in psql at least with \set
VERBOSITY verbose. For the patch, I would tend to choose these two,
but that's as far as my opinion goes and I am OK other ideas gather
more votes.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2024-03-07 07:26:08 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-03-07 07:21:03 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |