On fre, 2011-09-02 at 17:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the
> >> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I
> >> guess.
> >
> > Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution. Make it a
> > configuration parameter.
>
> Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that
> drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) or
> detailed log (with a lower log level).
If a user is forced to change the log level to get at one particular
piece of information, they will then also turn on countless other log
events on that level, which is annoying.