Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:02:07 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX
 CONCURRENTLY wait)
Message-ID: <20201123230207.GA2935@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <197162.1606171520@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:

> Ah, I see I didn't cover the case in ProcSleep that you were originally on
> about ... I'd just looked for existing references to log_min_messages
> and client_min_messages.

Yeah, it seemed bad form to add that when you had just argued against it
:-)

> I think it's important to have the explicit check for elevel >= ERROR.
> I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client,
> although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to
> is_log_level_output.

Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I
didn't (don't) have any other ideas.

> Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to?

Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep.