On 3/10/07, cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
> > So, I'm reading the slon documentation while waiting for stuff to
> > compile and these things jump out at me.
> >
> > 1) Debug level lists 8 levels of logging as error through debug4 and
> > then gives a numeric example. If it's a numeric log level, why aren't
> > there numbers beside the text labels?

Can we update the docs so that the numbers are directly related to the
log levels?

> > Also, this disagrees with the run-time config docs which say that
> > log_level can be from 0 to 4. The difference should be explained.
>
> I'm quite sure I did revise that; perhaps it needs a few more words.
>
> There are 8 levels; ERROR/WARN/CONFIG/INFO are ones that cannot be shut
> off.  Your choices of log levels are 0 thru 4; at 0, only the
> ERROR/WARN/CONFIG/INFO messages are shown.  At 1, DEBUG1 is added in.  At
> 2, DEBUG2 is added as well.  DEBUG4 will show all possible levels.

So we have -d and log_level both take a numeric argument that
specifies how verbose the logging should be, but the numbers mean
different log levels depending on which way they're passed in.

> > 2) Debug level suggest a log level of 2 (WARN) and says this is "a
> > routine, and, seemingly preferable choice". This is not what
> > experience has demonstrated. As I recall we ran all logging at debug1
> > since higher levels proved insufficient for troubleshooting. It seems
> > reasonable to recommend debug1 for production systems where
> > troubleshooting capabilities are required.
>
> No, you're mis-recalling this.  DEBUG2 is the level we have always been
> using.  Levels 3 and 4 show too much stuff; there's something at level 3
> that spits out a line for each tuple that is replicated.

So... everyone agrees that DEBUG2 is the level that should be
suggested for logging? And if that's the case, then perhaps the
documentation should also be updated?

Andrew