Re: elog(LOG), elog(DEBUG)

Tom Lane writes:

> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
> > There's a TODO item to make elog(LOG) a separate level.  I propose the
> > name INFO.  It would be identical to DEBUG in effect, only with a
> > different label.
>
> This conveys nothing to my mind.  How should I determine whether a given
> elog call ought to use INFO or DEBUG?

DEBUG is for messages intended to help locating and analyzing faults in
the source code (i.e., debugging).  Normal users don't need this during
normal operation.

INFO (or whatever the name) is for messages that administrator's might be
interested in for auditing and tuning.

Example:

elog(DEBUG, "heapgettup(..., b=0x%x, nkeys=%d, key=0x%x", buffer, nkeys, key);

vs.

elog(INFO, "connection: host=%s user=%s database=%s", ...);

There are maybe a dozen potential INFO messages, plus a few to be
converted fprintf's.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter