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


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to