Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > >> I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC. > >> BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just > >> change it. > > > > I have not any problem with bg worker flag. The only question is, what > > should be by default. > > Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains > unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to > DEBUG1. That has the advantage of not breaking backward > compatibility. But I'm not sure whether anyone cares if we just break > it, and it's certainly simpler without the flag.
I vote we do it the other way around, that is have a flag BGWORKER_VERBOSE. This breaks backwards compatibility (I don't think there's too much value in that in this case), but it copes with the more common use case that you want to have the flag while the worker is being developed; and things that are already working don't need to change in order to get the natural behavior. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
