From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Frontend error logging style |
Date: | 2022-02-26 05:55:34 |
Message-ID: | 2156790.1645854934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> Hm. I am not sure to like much this abstraction by having so many
> macros that understand the log level through their name. Wouldn't it
> be cleaner to have only one pg_log_hint() and one pg_log_detail() with
> the log level passed as argument of the macro?
Mmm ... that doesn't sound better to me. I think it wouldn't be
obvious that pg_log_warning and pg_log_hint are fundamentally
different sorts of things: in the first, "warning" refers to
an error severity level, while in the second, "hint" refers to
a message component. I'm not wedded to the way I did it in this
patch, but I think we ought to maintain a notational distinction
between those two sorts of concepts.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-26 06:04:43 | Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-26 05:51:14 | Re: PATCH: add "--config-file=" option to pg_rewind |