| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Kevin Brown" <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error message style guide, take 2 |
| Date: | 2003-05-16 22:02:40 |
| Message-ID: | 428.1053122560@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>> I didn't actually see anything to it except for a very ugly
>> spelling of ERROR:, NOTICE:, WARNING:, etc. What exactly is
>> there in their scheme that you can't do as well or better
>> with our existing practices?
> There is a unique signature that makes things easy to find. A grep for
> '%' will find all errors, warnings and informational messages. A grep
> for '-E-' will find all errors. The words 'error', 'warning' and
> 'notice' are not likely to be unique.
You think grep "ERROR:" is likely to get more false hits than grep "-E-"?
Somehow I doubt it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-05-16 22:03:20 | HEADS UP: IPs Changing |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-05-16 22:00:19 | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware |