Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Gavin Sherry
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0208300956030.11955-100000@linuxworld.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE:  Adding
> > missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202"  It might be helpful to
> > dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
> > simple change as far as elog.c and guc.c are concerned, but would this
> > be overkill?
>
> Hm.  Maybe instead of a boolean, what we want is a message level
> variable: log original query if it triggers a message >= severity X.

That's a pretty good idea. Now, what format will the argument take: text
(NOTICE, ERROR, DEBUG, etc) or integer? The increasing severity is clear
with numbers but the correlation to NOTICE, ERROR etc is undocumented
IIRC. On the other hand, the textual form is clear but INFO < NOTICE <
WARNING < ERROR < FATAL, etc, is note necessarily obvious. (Also, with the
textual option the word will need to be converted to the corresponding
number by the GUC code).

Naturally, the problem with each option can be cleared up with
documentation.

Does anyone have a preference here?

Gavin



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)