| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FK type mismatches? |
| Date: | 2003-09-05 23:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | 27748.1062805724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Robert Treat writes:
>> In all this discussion of NOTICE vs. WARNING, can someone remind me the
>> logic for INFO? I can't seem to recall the differentiator there either.
> Info is something you request explicitly. In the past, the result for
> EXPLAIN and SHOW were sent as INFO, but now those are sent as query
> results, and there are in fact very few INFO instances left. Also, INFO
> is not affect by the log level settings.
In a severity sense I think INFO is identical to NOTICE. We invented
the category as a means of preserving the pre-existing behavior of
VACUUM VERBOSE (ie, always show the messages) when we added
client_min_messages configurability.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-05 23:55:44 | Re: Notices for redundant operations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-05 23:44:28 | Re: Examining the output of: ldd `which postgres` |