Re: elog() patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: elog() patch
Date
Msg-id 200203011809.g21I9ZJ17211@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: elog() patch  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD writes:
> 
> > SQL92 has WARNING, would that be a suitable addition to NOTICE ?
> > INFO would not be added since it is like old NOTICE which would stay.
> > So, instead of introducing a lighter level we would introduce a
> > stronger level. (WARNING more important than NOTICE)
> > If we change, we might as well adopt some more SQL'ism.
> 
> At the client side SQL knows two levels, namely a "completion condition"
> and an "exception condition".  In the PostgreSQL client protocol, these
> are distinguished as N and E message packets.  The tags of the messages
> are irrelevant, they just serve as a guide to the user reading the
> message.

Yes, both INFO and NOTICE/WARNING will come to the client as N.  Only
the message tags will be different.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: elog() patch
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: elog() patch