Re: elog() patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, now that the elog() patch is in, we can discuss NOTICE. I know
> > Peter wants to keep NOTICE to reduce the number of changes, but I
> > already have a few votes that the existing NOTICE messages should be
> > changed to a tag of WARNING.
>
> If you're taking a vote, I vote with Peter. I don't much care for the
> thought of EXPLAIN results coming out tagged WARNING ;-)

EXPLAIN now comes out as INFO.

> In any case, simple renamings like this ought to be carried out as part
> of the prefix-tagging of elog names that we intend to do late in 7.3,
> no? I see no value in having two rounds of widespread changes instead
> of just one.

Agreed. So you think WARNING makes sense, but let's do it at the right
time. Perhaps that is what Peter was saying anyway.

However, with DEBUG symbol gone, or at least gone after 7.3, I don't see
a big need to add PG_ to the beginning of every elog() symbol. Can I
get some votes on that? DEBUG was our big culprit of conflict with
other interfaces, specifically Perl. With that split into DEBUG1-5, do
we need to prefix the remaining symbols?

--
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