Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20071220152857.GC26753@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 2. Do we really want this to be WARNING? LOG seems a better idea, > >> since it's not warning about anything the client app did wrong. > > > I put it as warning because I wanted to be sure the admin notices. If your > > database is hanging 5+ seconds to open a file, you have a *big* problem, > > and you need to fix it. Just putting it as LOG will probably make it much > > more likely it's missed. > > This reasoning is faulty. For logging purposes, LOG is *more* severe > (higher priority) than WARNING. I think it's fairly common to set > log_min_messages = ERROR, which would mean that warnings disappear. > On the client side, unless you're issuing queries by hand with psql, > it's entirely likely that all non-error messages go into the bit bucket. > You can't count on anyone ever noticing them in a production app. > > Use LOG. That's what it's there for. (If you want a more formal > definition, I'd say it's for messages that a DBA would be interested in > but are not directly relevant to a client app.) Ah, wasn't aware of that at all. Then LOG certainly makes a lot more sense, yes. Thanks for clearifying. //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: