Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)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.

I think the arg has to be text. See server_min_messages GUC for an
example.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073