Re: elog() proposal

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: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() proposal
Date: 2002-02-22 04:28:14
Message-ID: 13941.1014352094@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Actually, it is even simpler. Let's do this:
> Client levels:
> DEBUG, LOG, INFO, NOTICE, ERROR
> Server levels:
> DEBUG, INFO, LOG, NOTICE, ERROR, FATAL, CRASH

Hmm, so the two cases have different ideas of the ordering of the
levels? Could be confusing, but it does keep the configuration
entries simple-looking.

What's your reaction to Peter's comments that the whole notion of
a linear set of elog levels should be abandoned?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-22 04:35:57 Re: elog() proposal
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-22 04:24:30 Re: [HACKERS] Feature enhancement request : use of libgda