Re: Updating psql for features of new FE/BE protocol

Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, I would like to provide the same set of options w.r.t. messages
> >> logged in the server log. Here there is an additional frammish that
> >> could be imagined, ie, more detail for more-serious errors. Any
> >> opinions about what it should look like?
>
> > Not sure exactly what you're asking for here. If you're asking what
> > additional detail should be included for more serious errors,
>
> No, I was asking whether anyone thought such behavior should be
> user-controllable, and if so exactly how the controlling GUC variables
> should be defined.
>
> One way I could imagine doing it is to split log_min_messages into
> three variables, along the lines of "minimum message level to produce
> a TERSE report", "minimum message level to produce a DEFAULT report",
> and "minimum message level to produce a VERBOSE report". This seems
> a bit inelegant though. Better ideas anyone?

I doubt someone would want to control terse/default/verbose at various
levels --- I assume they would just want all their messages to be
terse/default/ or verbose.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073