| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: elog() patch |
| Date: | 2002-03-01 18:09:35 |
| Message-ID: | 200203011809.g21I9ZJ17211@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> At the client side SQL knows two levels, namely a "completion condition"
> and an "exception condition". In the PostgreSQL client protocol, these
> are distinguished as N and E message packets. The tags of the messages
> are irrelevant, they just serve as a guide to the user reading the
> message.
Yes, both INFO and NOTICE/WARNING will come to the client as N. Only
the message tags will be different.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-01 18:15:33 | Re: elog() patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-01 18:07:59 | Re: elog() patch |