On Wed, Mar 5, 2025, at 1:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > 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. >
One of my main concerns was a clear interface. I think "default" is less confusing than "all". Your suggestion about single or list is aligned with what Alvaro suggested. IIUC you are suggesting default:loglevel only if it is part of the list; the single loglevel shouldn't contain the backend type to keep the backward compatibility. The advantage of your proposal is that it make it clear what the fallback log level is. However, someone could be confused asking if the "default" is a valid backend type and if there is a difference between WARNING and default:WARNING (both is a fallback for non-specified backend type elements). -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
