Re: proposal: additional error fields

On 2 May 2012 01:13, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases, and
> fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would be
> really workable.  My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's invent
> some new error severities" is not close to reality and will break all
> sorts of stuff.

I now accept that your proposal to derive magnitude from SQLSTATE was
better than my earlier proposal to invent a new severity level, though
I do of course also agree that that approach necessitates refining the
SQLSTATEs in some cases.

On 2 May 2012 01:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, the fact is that most people do not log SQLSTATEs.  And even if
> they did, they're not going to know to grep for 53|58|maybe F0|XX.
> What we need is an easy way for people to pick out any log entries
> that represent conditions that should never occur as a result of any
> legitimate user activity.  Like, with grep.  And, without needing to
> have a PhD in Postgresology.

I couldn't agree more.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services