Re: elog() patch

Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Now I am verwirrt (== brain all knots) :-)
>
> My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
> For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
> Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of
> clients will currently parse "NOTICE".

OK, now that the current elog() patch seems to be OK with everyone, we
can discuss if we want to change the remaining non-INFO NOTICE messages
to WARNING. Seems to more closely match the SQL standard. All messages
will continue using the 'N' protocol type so this shouldn't be an issue.
I don't know any clients that parse the NOTICE: tag, but they are going
to have to change things for INFO: anyway so we might as well make the
change during 7.3 too.

Comments?

> I also like LOG, since I don't like the current NOTICES in the log.

Good, that was one of my goals.

> Imho INFO and WARNING would be nothing for the log per default.
> LOG would be things that are only of concern to the DBA.
> My preferred client level would prbbly be WARNING (no INFO).

Well, that is interesting. Currently we would send WARNING/NOTICE to
the logs because it is an exceptional condition, though not as serious
as error.

--
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