On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:50:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> I think that what would actually be of some use nowadays is a LOG-level
> >> message emitted if the wraparound *isn't* activated immediately at start.
> >> But otherwise, we should follow the rule that silence is golden.
>
I wrote:
>> I think that what would actually be of some use nowadays is a LOG-level
>> message emitted if the wraparound *isn't* activated immediately at start.
>> But otherwise, we should follow the rule that silence is golden.
> Concretely, how about the attached? It preserves the original
>
On 11 March 2017 at 03:24, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/9/17 23:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, if we're measuring this on a scale of usefulness to the average
>> DBA, I would argue that it's of more interest than any of these messages
>> that currently appear
I wrote:
> I think that what would actually be of some use nowadays is a LOG-level
> message emitted if the wraparound *isn't* activated immediately at start.
> But otherwise, we should follow the rule that silence is golden.
Concretely, how about the attached? It preserves the original
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, what's that got to do with it? I'm not proposing to downgrade this
>> message in 9.3, or indeed any current release branch. But it's hard
>> to believe that a 9.3 installation that had the problem would manage
>> to make
Tom Lane wrote:
> Euler Taveira writes:
> > 2017-03-10 1:43 GMT-03:00 Tom Lane :
> >> 2017-03-09 23:40:12.334 EST [19335] LOG: MultiXact member wraparound
> >> protections are now enabled
>
> > It should be DEBUG1 as soon as 9.3 is deprecated.
>
> Uh,
Euler Taveira writes:
> 2017-03-10 1:43 GMT-03:00 Tom Lane :
>> 2017-03-09 23:40:12.334 EST [19335] LOG: MultiXact member wraparound
>> protections are now enabled
> It should be DEBUG1 as soon as 9.3 is deprecated.
Uh, what's that got to do with it?
On 3/9/17 23:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, if we're measuring this on a scale of usefulness to the average
> DBA, I would argue that it's of more interest than any of these messages
> that currently appear by default:
>
> 2017-03-09 23:40:12.334 EST [19335] LOG: MultiXact member wraparound
>
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> ... So I think the logging setup I had in
>> my patch is pretty much the only sane way to do it, and we just have
>> to decide whether it's worth exposing at default log level or not.
> I definitely think we
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > database system is ready to accept connections on (1.2.3.4)
>
> That would be a problem from a couple of directions. First, it wouldn't
> be unusual for there to be half a dozen addresses to list, not just
2017-03-10 1:43 GMT-03:00 Tom Lane :
> Yeah, my thought was that if we've gotten along without this for 20 years,
> it's probably not of interest to most people most of the time.
>
> +1 for DEBUG1.
> 2017-03-09 23:40:12.334 EST [19335] LOG: MultiXact member wraparound
>
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tels (nospam-pg-ab...@bloodgate.com) wrote:
>> I'd argue that from a security standpoint it is important to log at
>> startup what addresses the service binds to, just so it is visible,
>> explicit and logged.
> It's also terribly useful for
Greetings,
* Tels (nospam-pg-ab...@bloodgate.com) wrote:
> On Thu, March 9, 2017 11:43 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> >>> +1 for making it LOG instead of DEBUG1
> >
> >> I would tend
Moin,
On Thu, March 9, 2017 11:43 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
For good measure I also added a DEBUG1 log message reporting
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> For good measure I also added a DEBUG1 log message reporting successful
>>> binding to a port. I'm not sure if there's an argument
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Over in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca
>> we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple
>>
On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Over in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca
> we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple
> networking misconfiguration. It would probably have taken a lot less
> effort if
Over in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca
we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple
networking misconfiguration. It would probably have taken a lot less
effort if the postmaster were more forthcoming about exactly
18 matches
Mail list logo