Re: elog() proposal

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Actually, it is even simpler. Let's do this:
> > Client levels:
> > DEBUG, LOG, INFO, NOTICE, ERROR
> > Server levels:
> > DEBUG, INFO, LOG, NOTICE, ERROR, FATAL, CRASH
>
> Hmm, so the two cases have different ideas of the ordering of the
> levels? Could be confusing, but it does keep the configuration
> entries simple-looking.
>
> What's your reaction to Peter's comments that the whole notion of
> a linear set of elog levels should be abandoned?

I don't want to get into a second-system effect where we develop a
system that is hard to manage. We do need error codes, and I think this
system will fit into that when we decide to do it.

However, we would still need a system of reporting control if we went
with codes. I don't see a way around that. I have seen the linear
error systems where everything is numbers, and things that are 9X are
serious and -1X are not, but it seems quite confusing. Eventually we
can base codes on these levels we have defined and go from there.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026