2015-06-26 17:28 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal
though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all
in favour of just
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal
though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all
in favour of just changing the log message, I think LOG is way too
high for
On 6/23/15 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I've certainly had similar issues to you w.r.t. to debug messages from
user-level code, and wanted to be able to enable one particular log
line, all log output from a particular function, or all log output
from a particular extension / all functions in a
2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby 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
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
satisfied very well by just causing existing start/stop
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
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
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
On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says.
However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be
satisfied very well by just causing existing
On 24 June 2015 at 03:23, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says.
However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of
wanting extra logging for a bgworker under
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
most (if not all) of these things.
I think we should consider having a flag for this behavior rather than
changing
On 6/14/15 12:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers
intensively for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log
level - and I am thinking so parallel computing needs it due high number
of created and finished workers.
It should
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 6/14/15 12:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers
intensively for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log
level - and I am thinking so parallel
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting
most (if not all) of these things.
I think we should consider
Hi
I am working on scheduler extension for 9.5. It use bgworkers intensively
for any task. This is reason, why I need to decrease a log level - and I am
thinking so parallel computing needs it due high number of created and
finished workers.
It should be fixed in 9.5 - because it is limiting
17 matches
Mail list logo
