| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: elog() patch |
| Date: | 2002-03-01 17:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB532@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter 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.
I am referring to "completion condition" messages according to SQLSTATE:
00xxx: Success
01xxx: Success with Warning
02xxx: Success but no rows found
03 and > : Failure
I see that there is no notion of INFO, thus I agree that INFO should not be
something normally sent to the user. INFO could be the first DEBUG Level,
or completely skipped.
I think that LOG would be more worth the trouble than INFO.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-01 17:34:34 | Re: elog() patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-03-01 17:09:56 | Re: elog() patch |