Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (Looks at code...) Ah. It looks like -d to the postmaster no longer >> means anywhere near what it used to. Bruce --- compare the handling >> of -d in the backend (postgres.c lines 1251ff) with its handling in >> the postmaster (postmaster.c lines 444ff). Big difference. Are we >> going to make these more alike? If so, which one do we like?
> I am sorry but I don't understand. They look like they both set > server_min_messages. Yeah, but postgres.c *also* sets log_connections, log_statement, debug_print_parse, debug_print_plan, debug_print_rewritten depending on the -d level. This behavior is not random; it's an attempt to reproduce the effects of the historical -d switch. The postmaster.c code is blowing off all those considerations. > *** 1275,1288 **** > if (atoi(optarg) >= 5) > >SetConfigOption("debug_print_rewritten", "true", ctx, gucsource); > } > - else > - > - /* > - * -d 0 allows user to prevent >postmaster debug > - * from propagating to backend. > - */ > - SetConfigOption("server_min_messages", >"notice", > - ctx, >gucsource); > } > break; I think you are deleting your own code there ... why? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]