| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable |
| Date: | 2002-08-30 00:42:28 |
| Message-ID: | 15459.1030668148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> That's a pretty good idea. Now, what format will the argument take: text
> (NOTICE, ERROR, DEBUG, etc) or integer? The increasing severity is clear
> with numbers but the correlation to NOTICE, ERROR etc is undocumented
> IIRC. On the other hand, the textual form is clear but INFO < NOTICE <
> WARNING < ERROR < FATAL, etc, is note necessarily obvious.
The variable should take the same values as SERVER_MIN_MESSAGES and
impose the same priority order as it does. I would assume you could
share code, or at worst copy-and-paste a few dozen lines.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-30 00:46:24 | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-30 00:21:44 | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-30 00:46:24 | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-30 00:39:22 | Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions |