Re: warning message in standby
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: warning message in standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1276537120.23257.53814.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: warning message in standby (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: warning message in standby
Re: warning message in standby |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > Should I be downgrading Hot Standby breakages to LOG? That will > > certainly help high availability as well. > > If a message is being issued in a non-user-connected session, there > is basically not a lot of point in WARNING or below. It should either > be LOG, or ERROR/FATAL/PANIC (which are probably all about the same > thing in the startup process...) This looks like a significant issue to me. Code has been written for 9.0 that assumes WARNING > LOG. I've pointed out two places in SR code, I'm pretty sure there are others. There is also lots of pre-existing code where we run the same code in a backend and in a server process, for example autovacuum. In those cases, all the WARNINGs issued in vacuum.c, for example, will all be filtered by the current log-level scheme. LOG is already over-used and so anything said at that level is drowned. In many areas of code we cannot use a higher level without trauma. That is a problem since we have no way to separate the truly important from the barely interesting. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: