On 2 Září 2011, 20:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 17:13 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Sure, but I think the effort not to have a zillion of GUC makes sense. > > Well, I'll be the first to agree that reducing complexity in > configuration and tuning settings is worth aiming for. > > But for logging, I'd rather have more settings, theoretically up to one > for each possible message. That doesn't increase complexity, as long as > it has linear behavior. It's debatable whether that means a new > log_something parameter for each situation, or just a single parameter > containing some kind of list, or something else, but that's a different > problem.
OK, good point. The effort to make this work without a GUC obviously is a dead end, and the idea to turn log_checkpoints into an enum seems reasonable. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
