On 2016-03-29 12:28:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > David Steele wrote:
> >> On 3/29/16 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Repurposing COMMERROR is definitely starting to seem like a low-impact
> >>> solution compared to these others. Under what circumstances would you
> >>> be wanting hide-from-client with an elevel different from LOG, anyway?
>
> > So audit records would use COMMERROR? That sounds really bad to me.
>
> My proposal would be to invent a new elevel macro, maybe LOG_ONLY,
> for this purpose. But under the hood it'd be the same as COMMERROR.
A couple years back I proposed making thinks like COMERROR into flags |
ed into elevel, rather than distinct levels. I still think that's a
better approach; and it doesn't force us to forgo using distinct log
levels.
Andres