On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <
bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
>>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
>
>> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or
>> ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply.
>
> The previous argument about it was "if you bothered to specify FREEZE,
> you probably really want/need that behavior". So I can definitely see
> Andres' point. Perhaps WARNING would be a suitable compromise?