On Sep 2, 2011 5:02 PM, "Tomas Vondra" <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote:
> On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the
> >> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I
> >> guess.
> >
> > Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution.  Make it a
> > configuration parameter.
> Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that
> drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) or
> detailed log (with a lower log level).
> In the first patch I've proposed a new GUC (used to set how often the info
> should be logged or disable it), but Josh Berkus pointed out that I should
> get rid of it if I can. Which is what I've done in the following patches.

Well, josh doesn't speak for everybody ;-)

Maybe one way could be to change log_checkpoints into an enum of "off, on,
debug "(values open for bikeshedding of course)


Reply via email to