Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 13:58:35 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>
Cc: japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, 
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: log_min_messages per backend type
Message-ID: <202602091250.genyflm2d5dw@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <88d8e984-ad63-48c1-86af-d50d7776942f@app.fastmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202602091250.genyflm2d5dw%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Feb-06, Euler Taveira wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, at 8:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > * I'm not fond of the term "generic", so I changed it to "default",
> > which IMO makes more sense from the user point of view.
> 
> I'm fine with "default" instead of "generic". However, you forgot to replace
> "generic" in a few places. The attached patch fixes them all.

I just pushed this, and somehow I forgot to squash this into the commit.
I don't think it matters terribly much though, so I'm going to hang onto
this for a while in case some bug is found.

I made some more changes though.  Notably, I reworded some things in the
docs that appeared ungrammatical and added a simple example; added the
list of process types to postgresql.conf.sample; and moved the GUC
check/assign hooks to elog.c together with the other elog-affecting
GUCs, as I didn't think they made much sense in variable.c.

Another thing, which is actually quite significant, is that I fixed a
bug I had introduced on Friday without realizing: I had added a "break"
in the loop that searches for process types.  But we mustn't break
there!  Otherwise we fail to set the level for process types that share
the same process "category" with others, such as "backend" and
"autovacuum".  So I removed the break and added a comment about it.
It's sad that no tests broke when I introduced that bug, but I think it
would be difficult to cover this.

Thanks

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"That sort of implies that there are Emacs keystrokes which aren't obscure.
I've been using it daily for 2 years now and have yet to discover any key
sequence which makes any sense."                        (Paul Thomas)