Re: elog() patch
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: elog() patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 02fd01c1c323$1accddf0$8001a8c0@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: elog() patch (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: elog() patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
EXPLAIN would come out as INFO would it not? -- Rod Taylor This message represents the official view of the voices in my head ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> Cc: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>; <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] elog() patch > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > OK, now that the elog() patch is in, we can discuss NOTICE. I know > > Peter wants to keep NOTICE to reduce the number of changes, but I > > already have a few votes that the existing NOTICE messages should be > > changed to a tag of WARNING. > > If you're taking a vote, I vote with Peter. I don't much care for the > thought of EXPLAIN results coming out tagged WARNING ;-) > > In any case, simple renamings like this ought to be carried out as part > of the prefix-tagging of elog names that we intend to do late in 7.3, > no? I see no value in having two rounds of widespread changes instead > of just one. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: