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

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,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 00:10:32
Message-ID: 200208300010.g7U0AWp10272@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 00:21:44
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-30 00:09:33
Subject: Re: tweaking MemSet() performance

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 00:21:44
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:07:35
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)

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