Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> 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.

Frankly, logging as verbose as this is proposed to be is something
that I can't imagine anybody wanting at all, especially not in
production environments.  DEBUG3 or somewhere around there seems fine.
        regards, tom lane