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

From Tomonari Katsumata
Subject Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.
Date
Msg-id CAC55fYcjT5MvYEk=t0rs--mRSkEBoAPoQM8bpdBfw4v5qEotxA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

2014-03-10 23:45 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
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.

Maybe so.
 

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.


I see.
If we delete it, it maybe become more confusing thing.

Thank you for your opinion.

regards,
---------------
Tomonari Katsumata

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: on_exit_reset fails to clear DSM-related exit actions
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime