Re: elog() proposal

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> So, basically, what this comes down to with respect to your patch:

> 1. Renumbering the error codes breaks backward compatibility *silently*.

Perhaps, but it doesn't bother me. We have *never* promised binary
compatibility of server-side extensions across versions; usually,
you should be happy if a recompile is sufficient ;-). (Structs,
for example, are subject to field rearrangement all the time.)

In any case, we could maintain binary compatibility for the old-style
codes (DEBUG, ERROR, etc); this does not force us to use matching
codes for the new PG_ERROR etc. levels.

> 2. CRASH doesn't seem like a good name to me.

Why not? It's short, memorable, accurate, and what's wrong with
a little levity?

> 3. I agree with adding a LOG or INFO level between DEBUG and NOTICE.

Both, I think; they're not the same thing. LOG = routine server
operation notices (eg, "checkpoint starting now"). INFO =
allegedly-helpful messages issued to client (eg, the one about
truncating overlength identifiers). Normal configuration would
be to put one but not the other into the postmaster log.

regards, tom lane