Re: Enabling Checksums

On 3/4/13 6:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 08:15 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>
>> Would it be better to do checksum_logging_level = <valid elog levels>
>> ? That way someone could set the notification to anything from DEBUG
>> up to PANIC. ISTM the default should be ERROR.
> That seems nice at first brush, but I don't think it holds up.
>
> All our other log_level parameters control only output. If I saw that
> parameter, I would think "aah, this is how we control the detail and
> verbosity of messages regarding checksum checking and maintenance". I
> would be totally astonished if I changed it and it actually affected the
> system's data integrity checking and enforcement processes. Logging
> control GUCs control what we show to what clients/log files, not what
> log statements get executed; they're a filter and don't control the
> behaviour of the emitting log point.
>
> Control over whether checksum failures are an error or merely warned
> about is reasonable, but I strongly disagree with the idea of making
> this seem like it's just a logging parameter.

Good point. I thought we actually had precedent for controlling the level that something gets logged at, but now that you mention it I guess we don't. And this could sure as hell cause confusion.

So yeah, your original idea sounds best.