Re: elog() patch

> Actually, an interesting idea would be to leave NOTICE alone and make
> the more serious messages WARNING. The problem with that is I think
> INFO is clearer as something for client/user, and LOG something for the
> logs. I don't think NOTICE has the same conotation. I just thought I
> would mention that possibility.
>
> So, with WARNING, NOTICE would go away and become INFO or WARNING, and
> DEBUG goes away to become DEBUG1-5. With DEBUG gone, our need to add
> PG_* to the beginning of the elog symbols may not be necessary.

Now I am verwirrt (== brain all knots) :-)

My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of
clients will currently parse "NOTICE".

I also like LOG, since I don't like the current NOTICES in the log.
Imho INFO and WARNING would be nothing for the log per default.
LOG would be things that are only of concern to the DBA.
My preferred client level would prbbly be WARNING (no INFO).

Andreas