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

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 00:04:25
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0208300956030.11955-100000@linuxworld.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
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.

Does anyone have a preference here?

Gavin



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:07:35
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2002-08-30 00:02:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-30 00:07:35
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2002-08-30 00:02:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

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