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