Re: elog() proposal

> Well, I do. We don't need the separate user-side error functions
> initially, but eventually we will have to have them.
>
> So, basically, what this comes down to with respect to your patch:
>
> 1. Renumbering the error codes breaks backward compatibility *silently*.

OK, so people want the old codes kept. I just have to warn people that
there will be some funky test structure in elog.c to handle message
*_min_messages tests. Is that OK?

> 2. CRASH doesn't seem like a good name to me.

OK, changed to FATALALL, which is pretty descriptive.

> 3. I agree with adding a LOG or INFO level between DEBUG and NOTICE.

OK, good, that was the crux of the patch. The rest was cleanups.

>
> 4. I don't like the alignment change. That seems very un-computer-like.

OK, removed, not always two spaces.

--
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