Hi, > > On 2025-03-04 Tu 7:33 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: >>> I think it should be acceptable to configure one global setting with >>> exceptions for particular backend types: >>> >>> log_min_messages = WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1 >>> >>> Right now I think the code only accepts the unadorned log level if >>> there >>> are no other items in the list. I think the proposal downthread is to >>> use the keyword ALL for this, >>> >>> log_min_messages = all:WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1 # I don't >>> like this >>> >>> but I think it's inferior, because then "all" is not really "all", >>> and I >>> think it would be different if I had said >>> >>> log_min_messages = autovacuum:DEBUG1, all:WARNING # I don't >>> like this >>> >>> because it looks like the "all" entry should override the one I set >>> for >>> autovacuum before, which frankly would not make sense to me. >> >> Good point. After reflection, I agree that "all" is not a good keyword. >> This patch turns backend type as optional so WARNING means apply this >> log level as a final step to the backend types that are not >> specified in >> the list. >> >>> So I think these two lines, >>> >>> log_min_messages = WARNING, autovacuum:DEBUG1 >>> log_min_messages = autovacuum:DEBUG1, WARNING >>> >>> should behave identically and mean "set the level for autovacuum to >>> DEBUG1, and to any other backend type to WARNING. >> >> Done. > > > Just bikeshedding a bit ... > > I'm not mad keen on this design. I think the value should be either a > single setting like "WARNING" or a set of type:setting pairs. I agree > that "all" is a bad name, but I think "default" would make sense. > > I can live with it but I think this just looks a bit odd. >
Just bringing some thoughts about it... How about using something like *:WARNING? I'm not sure if it could also be confusing as the "all" keyword, but I think it could also be interpreted as "anything else use WARNING". -- Matheus Alcantara
