Re: NOTICE vs WARNING
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NOTICE vs WARNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1061988714.3389.372.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: NOTICE vs WARNING (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 00:07, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > > > Surely a WARNING is a problem that you should probably fix? > > > > How are "should" and "probably" defined? > > > > > Or at least pay attention to. > > > > If it were in fact the characteristic of a NOTICE that you need not pay > > attention to them, why do we have them? > > > > > My thought is that you could turn of NOTICES and not worry. > > > > Well, there are plenty of NOTICE instances that carry a definite need to > > worry, such as identifier truncation, implicitly added FROM items, > > implicit changes to types specified as "opaque", unsupported and ignored > > syntax clauses. > > > > I have a slight feeling that these two categories cannot usefully be > > distinguished, but I'm interested to hear other opinions. > > The creation of a sequence during SERIAL creation is clearly a notice: > > test=> create table x(y serial); > NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "x_y_seq" for SERIAL > column "x.y" > CREATE TABLE > > That is what I used as a guide I think --- notices were things we want > to tell you about, but you shouldn't be concerned about it. (Hey, I did > it without using "probably"). > I'll second this notion. Things like what is effected by DROP...CASCADE and I believe that changing types from OPAQUE to TRIGGER fall into this category as well. I'm trying to decide on the implicit FROM, iirc we now have a GUC to turn this on/off, so it seems it should be a notice if you've turned it on. Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: