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]

Reply via email to