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

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject Re: elog() patch
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA488784E@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to elog() patch  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: elog() patch  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: elog() patch  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: elog() patch  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > We could call it TIP or something like that. I think INFO is used
> > because it isn't a NOTICE or ERROR or something major.  It is only INFO.
> > It is neutral information.
>
> That's what NOTICE is.  NOTICE is only neutral information. NOTICE could
> go to the client by default, whereas if you want something in the server
> log you use LOG.  I doubt an extra level is needed.

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.

e.g. string truncation is defined to return SUCCESS with WARNING.

I guess it would be a horror for existing client code though :-(

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Karel Zak
Date:
Subject: Re: Database Caching
Next
From: Andrew McMillan
Date:
Subject: Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your