On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 09:02, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:36:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > log_backtrace speaks a bit more to me as a name for this stuff because
> > it logs a backtrace. Now, there is consistency on HEAD as well
> > because these GUCs are all prefixed with "backtrace_". Would
> > something like a backtrace_mode where we have an enum rather than a
> > boolean be better?
I guess it depends what we want consistency with. If we want naming
consistency with all other LOGGING_WHAT GUCs or if we want naming
consistency with the current backtrace_functions GUC. I personally
like log_backtrace slightly better, but I don't have a super strong
opinion on this either. Another option could be plain "backtrace".
> > One thing would be to redesign the existing GUC as
> > having two values on HEAD as of:
> > - "none", to log nothing.
> > - "internal", to log backtraces for internal errors.
If we go for backtrace_mode or backtrace, then I think I'd prefer
"disabled"/"off" and "internal_error" for these values.
> The rest of the proposals had better happen as a v18 discussion, where
> extending this GUC is a benefit.
agreed
