| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL |
| Date: | 2019-03-13 17:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | 7554.1552497540@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> writes:
>>> Ugh, I guess so. Or how about changing the message itself to use
>>> INFO, like we already do in QueuePartitionConstraintValidation?
>> Fine for me. But year ago this was implemented in my patch and Tom voted against using INFO level for such purpose: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1142.1520362313%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> What I thought then was that you didn't need the message at all,
> at any debug level. I still think that.
Oh, and yes, I think QueuePartitionConstraintValidation's usage
is an unacceptable abuse of INFO level. I'm surprised we haven't
gotten complaints about it yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-13 17:24:29 | Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-13 17:15:45 | Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc |