On 2025/07/17 17:05, vignesh C wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 at 11:18, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Shouldn't we be using a notice receiver rather than a notice processor?
>
> I saw the following comment in code regarding PQsetNoticeProcessor
> should be deprecated:
> /*
> * The default notice message receiver just gets the standard notice text
> * and sends it to the notice processor. This two-level setup exists
> * mostly for backwards compatibility; perhaps we should deprecate use of
> * PQsetNoticeProcessor?
> */
>
> So I changed it to PQsetNoticeReceiver.
+1
As a side note, I'd like to clarify in the source comments or documentation
that PQsetNoticeProcessor() exists mainly for backward compatibility,
and PQsetNoticeReceiver() should be preferred. But that's a separate topic
from this patch.
> The attached v5 version patch
> has the changes for the same.
Thanks for updating the patches!
+static void notice_receiver(void *arg, const PGresult *result);
For consistency with the typedef for PQnoticeReceiver, it would be better
to name the argument "res" instead of "result".
+ * Set a custom notice receiver so that NOTICEs, WARNINGs, and similar
The "s" in "NOTICEs" and "WARNINGs" isn't needed.
+ * Trim the trailing newline from the message text passed to the notice
+ * receiver, as it always includes one, to produce cleaner log output.
"message text passed to the notice receiver" should be changed to
"message text returned by PQresultErrorMessage()"?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation