Re: NOTICE vs WARNING

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Well, there are plenty of NOTICE instances that carry a definite need to
> worry, such as identifier truncation, implicitly added FROM items,
> implicit changes to types specified as "opaque", unsupported and ignored
> syntax clauses.

Of course, some of those may be misclassified...

> I have a slight feeling that these two categories cannot usefully be
> distinguished, but I'm interested to hear other opinions.

I would say that NOTICEs are things that are routine in certain
contexts. We would not bother with the NOTICE at all if we thought
it held no interest, but often it doesn't have any.

Ignored syntax clauses probably ought to be WARNINGs, since the message
is telling you that what you asked for isn't going to be done. The
other examples you give seem appropriate as NOTICEs. In particular,
the notices about changing "opaque" types to something else are a
routine occurrence in upgrading old schemas, and so I think it's
reasonable for them to be NOTICEs.

regards, tom lane