Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client,
>> although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to
>> is_log_level_output.
> Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I
> didn't (don't) have any other ideas.
I never cared that much for "is_log_level_output" either. Thinking
about renaming it to "should_output_to_log()", and then the new function
would be "should_output_to_client()".
>> Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to?
> Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep.
Will do.
regards, tom lane