Re: elog() patch

Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > > We could call it TIP or something like that. I think INFO is used
> > > because it isn't a NOTICE or ERROR or something major. It is only INFO.
> > > It is neutral information.
> >
> > That's what NOTICE is. NOTICE is only neutral information. NOTICE could
> > go to the client by default, whereas if you want something in the server
> > log you use LOG. I doubt an extra level is needed.
>
> SQL92 has WARNING, would that be a suitable addition to NOTICE ?
> INFO would not be added since it is like old NOTICE which would stay.
> So, instead of introducing a lighter level we would introduce a
> stronger level. (WARNING more important than NOTICE)
> If we change, we might as well adopt some more SQL'ism.
>
> e.g. string truncation is defined to return SUCCESS with WARNING.
>
> I guess it would be a horror for existing client code though :-(

Actually, an interesting idea would be to leave NOTICE alone and make
the more serious messages WARNING. The problem with that is I think
INFO is clearer as something for client/user, and LOG something for the
logs. I don't think NOTICE has the same conotation. I just thought I
would mention that possibility.

So, with WARNING, NOTICE would go away and become INFO or WARNING, and
DEBUG goes away to become DEBUG1-5. With DEBUG gone, our need to add
PG_* to the beginning of the elog symbols may not be necessary.

--
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