Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.
Date
Msg-id 32603.1394462750@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.  (Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata.tomonari@po.ntts.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.  (Tomonari Katsumata <t.katsumata1122@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata.tomonari@po.ntts.co.jp> writes:
> Adding FATAL and PANIC to client_min_messages is done at below-commit.
> 8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606

> According to the commit log, it seems that the purpose
> is suppressing to be sent error message to client when "DROP TABLE".
> In those days(pre 8.1), we did not have "DROP IF EXISTS" syntax,
> so it was useful.

> If this was the reason, now(from 8.2) we have "DROP IF EXISTS" syntax,

Uh, that was one example of what it might be good for; I doubt that the
use-case has now vanished entirely.  While I'm still dubious about the
reliability of suppressing error messages, if people have been using this
type of coding for nearly 10 years then it probably works well enough
... and more to the point, they won't thank us for arbitrarily removing
it.

I think we should leave established practice alone here.  It might be
confusing at first glance, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: calculating an aspect of shared buffer state from a background worker
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime