> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> Here's something that could be improved in the documentation. Because
>> the documentation is currently inconsistent on this point, I'm not sure
>> how to resolve it myself.
>>
>> It looks like "log_level" and "debuglevel" are used interchangeably in
>> the documentation.
>>
>> I think one should be chosen as a standard and the other eradicated.

Yes, you're definitely right about that.

> Yes, you're probably right about that.
>> Also, there is conflicting information about the what the allowed values
>> and the default is.
>>
>> - in slon_tools.pm "-d2" is hardcoded. This should be an option, either
>> settable in slon_tools.conf, or on the command line with slon_start.

I think inside slon_tools.conf is the right place for this

>> - mkslonconf.sh says valid values are from 0-4, with 4 being the
>> default, although the next line indicates maybe the default is 2:
>>
>> # Debug log level (higher value ==> more output).  Range: [0,4], default
>> 4
>> #log_level=2
>>
>>
>> - This page in the admin guide suggests that there are 8 levels of
>> logging, but they are given strings such as "error". No default is named
>> There . "debuglevel" and "log_level" are used interchangeably here.
>> http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/slon.html
>>
>> - In slon.c, "debuglevel" is referenced, but the valid values are 1-4,
>> not 0-4.
>>
>
> Reality, I think, is 1-4.

Reality is -4 thru 4, where the values that may be legitimately set are 0-4.

The negative values are the FATAL thru INFO levels, and we don't give the
option of evading those messages.  I don't think that's wrong.

It's possible that there should be some revisions made to which levels
various messages are associated; they are fairly comprehensively listed in
the "loganalysis.html" document.

There might be some "INFO" messages that should be at DEBUG levels (e.g. -
that therefore could be omitted from logs), and vice-versa.

> Making things more consistent would be a good thing...  I have some long
> train rides that should offer some time to look at that...

The last bit of "getting to Halifax" gave some opportunity for assessment.
 There seem to be some well advisable changes; I will doubtless have
something to commit on this by New Year.