LOG messages have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING
in log_min_messages (PANIC > FATAL > LOG > ERROR > WARNING) now.
Can I reorder them to ERROR > WARNING > LOG ? It makes a difference
to "per-destination minimum message levels" feature that I working on.

LOG messages are often used for performance logging. On the other hand,
WARNING and ERROR messages report something bad. It should be no surprise
that users think ERRORs and WARNINGs are more important than LOGs.
So, I think we should allow users to set log_min_messages to report
only PANIC, FATAL, ERROR and WARNING messages in server logs.

Am I missing something?

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

Search Discussions

  • Tom Lane at Sep 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Itagaki Takahiro writes:
    LOG messages have higher priority than ERROR and WARNING
    in log_min_messages (PANIC > FATAL > LOG > ERROR > WARNING) now.
    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.

    regards, tom lane
  • Itagaki Takahiro at Sep 14, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Tom Lane 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
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 14, 2009 at 6:19 am

    On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:16 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
    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.
    Ideally, LOG messages are messages that you explicitly requested using
    various log_* parameters. If you need more control, we could
    conceivably add more of those.
  • Magnus Hagander at Sep 14, 2009 at 8:50 am

    On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 02:16, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:

    Tom Lane 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.
    I think the requirement you're talking about is the same one I was
    when I said I wanted a "logging source" thing. Which is basically that
    an ERROR log from a user query or stored procedure is often not
    interesting at all to the DBA - but it is to the developer. But an
    ERROR log from the background writer or a low-level routine is *very*
    interesting to the DBA. Basically, the log levels mean completely
    different things depending on where they're coming in from.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedSep 11, '09 at 9:06a
activeSep 14, '09 at 8:50a
posts5
users4
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase