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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: elog() patch
Date
Msg-id 200203040252.g242qq108185@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: elog() patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: elog() patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca> writes:
> > EXPLAIN would come out as INFO would it not?
> 
> If we make it INFO it won't come out at all, at the message level that
> a lot of more-advanced users will prefer to use.  That's no solution.

Well, right now it is INFO.  It is certainly not a notice/warning or
error.  Seems we will have to address this.  Let me look at the existing
INFO message and see if there are any others that _have_ to be emitted. 
I will add a new symbol INFOFORCE which will always be sent to the
client no matter what the client_min_messages level.   Seems this is the
only good way to fix this.  Even if we make that NOTICE/WARNING, people
may turn that off too.

--  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: "Rod Taylor"
Date:
Subject: plpgsql nitpicking -- possible TODO item?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: elog() patch