Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Alvaro Herrera
Тема Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Дата
Msg-id 202111051450.umrp37mdbeez@alvherre.pgsql
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
Ответы Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2021-Nov-05, Michael Banck wrote:

> Well that, and the fact those distinctions are only done for user-
> facing events, whereas it seems to me we only distinguish between LOG
> and PANIC for server-facing events; maybe we need one or more
> additional levels here in order to make it easier for admins to see the
> really bad things that are happening?

I think what we need is an orthogonal classification.  "This FATAL here
is routine; that ERROR there denotes a severe problem in the underlying
OS".  Additional levels won't help with that.  Maybe adding the concept
of "severity" or "criticality" to some messages would be useful to
decide what to keep and what to discard.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Uno puede defenderse de los ataques; contra los elogios se esta indefenso"



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Matthias van de Meent
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Следующее
От: Mark Dilger
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname