Re: elog() patch

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() patch
Date: 2002-03-01 15:15:29
Message-ID: 200203011515.g21FFTk01711@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > > We could call it TIP or something like that. I think INFO is used
> > > because it isn't a NOTICE or ERROR or something major. It is only INFO.
> > > It is neutral information.
> >
> > That's what NOTICE is. NOTICE is only neutral information. NOTICE could
> > go to the client by default, whereas if you want something in the server
> > log you use LOG. I doubt an extra level is needed.
>
> SQL92 has WARNING, would that be a suitable addition to NOTICE ?
> INFO would not be added since it is like old NOTICE which would stay.
> So, instead of introducing a lighter level we would introduce a
> stronger level. (WARNING more important than NOTICE)
> If we change, we might as well adopt some more SQL'ism.
>
> e.g. string truncation is defined to return SUCCESS with WARNING.
>
> I guess it would be a horror for existing client code though :-(

That is a good point. We don't have tons of NOTICE messages, and
WARNING does better describe the new functionality of NOTICE, because
all those informative messages like sequence creation are now doing INFO
instead of NOTICE.

I can make a followup patch to do this. The current patch doesn't touch
the NOTICE messages that are left alone, so a separate patch makes
sense. How about WARN as a tag? Seems shorter than WARNING. Or maybe
WARNING is fine. It is just one more letter than NOTICE.

We can keep a NOTICE define for backward compatibility for 7.3, as I
have done with DEBUG.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-03-01 15:16:23 Re: Bug #605: timestamp(timestamp('a timestamp)) no longer works
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-03-01 15:15:28 Re: Database Caching