> > My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
> > For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
> > Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of
> > clients will currently parse "NOTICE".
>
> OK, now that the current elog() patch seems to be OK with everyone, we
> can discuss if we want to change the remaining non-INFO NOTICE messages
> to WARNING. Seems to more closely match the SQL standard. All messages
> will continue using the 'N' protocol type so this shouldn't be an issue.
Yes, I think that would be good.
> I don't know any clients that parse the NOTICE: tag, but they are going
> to have to change things for INFO: anyway so we might as well make the
> change during 7.3 too.
Good point.
> > I also like LOG, since I don't like the current NOTICES in the log.
>
> Good, that was one of my goals.
>
> > Imho INFO and WARNING would be nothing for the log per default.
> > LOG would be things that are only of concern to the DBA.
> > My preferred client level would prbbly be WARNING (no INFO).
>
> Well, that is interesting. Currently we would send WARNING/NOTICE to
> the logs because it is an exceptional condition, though not as serious
> as error.
Well, string truncation is imho not for the log, might interest the app
programmer but probably not the dba ? And if your point was to get rid
of the notices in the log (as is mine) you would have to not log Warning,
no ?
Andreas
