Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
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 00:42:28
Message-ID: 15459.1030668148@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> 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.

The variable should take the same values as SERVER_MIN_MESSAGES and
impose the same priority order as it does. I would assume you could
share code, or at worst copy-and-paste a few dozen lines.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-30 00:46:24 Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-30 00:21:44 Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-30 00:46:24 Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-30 00:39:22 Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions