Re: elog() patch

From: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() patch
Date: 2002-03-04 02:18:09
Message-ID: 02fd01c1c323$1accddf0$8001a8c0@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

EXPLAIN would come out as INFO would it not?

--
Rod Taylor

This message represents the official view of the voices in my head

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>;
<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] elog() patch

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, now that the elog() patch is in, we can discuss NOTICE. I
know
> > Peter wants to keep NOTICE to reduce the number of changes, but I
> > already have a few votes that the existing NOTICE messages should
be
> > changed to a tag of WARNING.
>
> If you're taking a vote, I vote with Peter. I don't much care for
the
> thought of EXPLAIN results coming out tagged WARNING ;-)
>
> In any case, simple renamings like this ought to be carried out as
part
> of the prefix-tagging of elog names that we intend to do late in
7.3,
> no? I see no value in having two rounds of widespread changes
instead
> of just one.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-03-04 02:23:40 Re: elog() patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-03-04 02:02:54 Re: elog() patch