Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > >> If you would prefer LOG down near INFO in the server message levels, > >> please post the idea and let's get some more comments from folks. > > > LOG should be below WARNING, in any case. Perhaps between NOTICE and > > WARNING, but I'm not so sure about that. > > I think the ordering Bruce developed is appropriate for logging. > There are good reasons to think that per-query ERRORs are less > interesting than LOG events for admin logging purposes.
OK. > The real problem here is that in the initdb context, we are really > dealing with an *interactive* situation, where LOG events ought to > be treated in the client-oriented scale --- but the backend does > not know this, it thinks it is emitting messages to the system log. > > I'm thinking that the mistake is in hard-wiring one scale of message > interest to control the frontend output and another one to the "log" > (stderr/syslog) output. Perhaps we should have a notion of "interactive" > message priorities vs "logging" message priorities, and allow either > scale to be used to control which messages are dispatched to any > message destination. Can't we just 'grep -v '^LOG:' to remove the log display from initdb? Seems pretty simple. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
