Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING?
От | Itagaki Takahiro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090914090133.E159.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and
WARNING?
Re: Why does LOG have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > > Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? > > No. That was an intentional decision. LOG is for stuff that we > really want to get logged, in most cases. ERROR is very often not > that interesting, and WARNING even more so. I think the decision is in hacker's viewpoint. Many times I see DBAs are interested in only WARNING, ERROR and FATAL, but often ignores LOG messages. We should use WARNING level for really important message -- and also priority of WARNINGs should be higher than LOGs. Another matter is that we use LOG level both cases of important activity logging and mere performance or query logging. Maybe we should have used another log level (PERFORMANCE?) for the latter case, and its priority is less than WARNINGs and LOGs. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: