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

Re: reindexdb command utlility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Henrik Zagerholm <henke(at)mac(dot)se>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reindexdb command utlility
Date: 2006-06-07 17:17:01
Message-ID: 3677.1149700621@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I thought it needed changing for consistency.  Shouldn't status messages
> like this be INFO:
> 	test=> REINDEX DATABASE test;
> 	NOTICE:  table "pg_class" was reindexed

> If I do VACUUM VERBOSE, those messages are INFO.

Yeah, *only because you said VERBOSE*.  When we implemented the current
elog level scheme, we designed INFO as non-suppressible so that it would
mimic the previous behavior of VACUUM VERBOSE.

If REINDEX had a VERBOSE option, it would make sense to put out the
messages as INFO when VERBOSE was used.  But it doesn't (and this is
not a request to add one).  Without VERBOSE, I think it's utterly
unacceptable to force the messages out regardless of client_min_messages.
NOTICE was a reasonable level, maybe LOG would be a better one.  But
not INFO.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-07 17:20:27
Subject: Re: reindexdb command utlility
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-07 17:02:08
Subject: Re: reindexdb command utlility

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