| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOTICE vs WARNING |
| Date: | 2003-09-03 01:46:01 |
| Message-ID: | 04f701c371bd$2360cd10$2800a8c0@mars |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In fact, I like the criterion that a warning should be raised rather than
> a notice if the effect of the command deviates from what the command
> actually says. That puts the messages for serials, primary keys, drop
> cascades clearly into notices, messages about missing, implicitly added,
> or changed syntax clauses into warnings.
>
> I don't think the dump reload scenario is particularly important. After
> all, psql or pg_restore don't act differently upon notice or warning, it's
> just something that the user reads.
WARNINGs don't cause transaction rollback, right? Cos if they did, changing
NOTICEs to WARNINGs would cause pain.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Weiping He | 2003-09-03 02:20:47 | Re: configure error in HP-UX 11.00 |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-09-03 01:40:34 | Re: Win32 native port |