Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Date: 2002-08-30 00:42:28
Message-ID: 15459.1030668148@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> 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.

The variable should take the same values as SERVER_MIN_MESSAGES and
impose the same priority order as it does.  I would assume you could
share code, or at worst copy-and-paste a few dozen lines.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:46:24
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 00:21:44
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:46:24
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:39:22
Subject: Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group