On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 19:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
The explanation of trace_recovery_messages in the document
is inconsistent with the definition of it in guc.c.
I've applied a patch for this.
I was tempted to propose that we just rip out
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This is definitely a stop-gap facility. If you were to propose a more
general facility for increasing log level of specific modules, I'm sure
the rest of us would see that implemented across the rest of the code.
Yeah, I
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
The explanation of trace_recovery_messages in the document
is inconsistent with the definition of it in guc.c.
I've applied a patch for this.
I was tempted to propose that we just rip out trace_recovery_messages
altogether, but I suppose Simon would
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
The explanation of trace_recovery_messages in the document
is inconsistent with the definition of it in guc.c.
Setting the default to WARNING is confusing and useless, because
there are no trace_recovery calls with that debug level. IMO the
default
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM the right is
* Categorized into DEVELOPER_OPTIONS
* The default is DEBUG1
* The context is PGC_SIGHUP
Don't think we should go live with default of DEBUG1.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM the right is
* Categorized into DEVELOPER_OPTIONS
* The default is DEBUG1
* The context is PGC_SIGHUP
Don't think we should go live with default of DEBUG1.
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 10:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?
No, because it's used in a lot
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?
No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.
Currently it's always
available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.
Where? I
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?
No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.
Currently it's always
