Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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 sure whether anyone cares if we just break
>> it, and it's certainly simpler without the flag.

> I vote we do it the other way around, that is have a flag BGWORKER_VERBOSE.
> This breaks backwards compatibility (I don't think there's too much
> value in that in this case), but it copes with the more common use case
> that you want to have the flag while the worker is being developed; and
> things that are already working don't need to change in order to get the
> natural behavior.

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 start/stop logging messages
to come out at higher priority.  You're likely to be wanting to log other,
bgworker-specific, events, and so you'll probably end up writing a bunch
of your own elog calls anyway (which you'll eventually remove, #ifdef out,
or decrease the log levels of).
        regards, tom lane