Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Gavin Sherry
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Дата
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0208300956030.11955-100000@linuxworld.com.au
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-patches
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > One of my users is generating a notice message --> NOTICE:  Adding
> > missing FROM-clause entry for table "msg202"  It might be helpful to
> > dump out the query on notice messages like this, and it looks like a
> > simple change as far as elog.c and guc.c are concerned, but would this
> > be overkill?
>
> Hm.  Maybe instead of a boolean, what we want is a message level
> variable: log original query if it triggers a message >= severity X.

That's a pretty good idea. Now, what format will the argument take: text
(NOTICE, ERROR, DEBUG, etc) or integer? The increasing severity is clear
with numbers but the correlation to NOTICE, ERROR etc is undocumented
IIRC. On the other hand, the textual form is clear but INFO < NOTICE <
WARNING < ERROR < FATAL, etc, is note necessarily obvious. (Also, with the
textual option the word will need to be converted to the corresponding
number by the GUC code).

Naturally, the problem with each option can be cleared up with
documentation.

Does anyone have a preference here?

Gavin



В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Joe Conway
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)