From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: elog() patch |
Date: | 2002-03-01 18:37:33 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB534@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
Yes, I think that would be good.
> 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.
Good point.
> > 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.
Well, string truncation is imho not for the log, might interest the app
programmer but probably not the dba ? And if your point was to get rid
of the notices in the log (as is mine) you would have to not log Warning,
no ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-03-01 18:39:31 | Re: elog() patch |
Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-03-01 18:21:30 | Re: keyword (or fulltext) indexes, any planned developments? |