| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: elog() patch |
| Date: | 2002-03-01 11:15:17 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA488784E@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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 :-(
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew McMillan | 2002-03-01 11:20:36 | Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your |
| Previous Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2002-03-01 11:07:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |