Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Suppress some NOTICE messages from REINDEX command.

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Suppress some NOTICE messages from REINDEX command.

This actually suppresses NOTICE messages in the reindexdb shell command.  
Shouldn't those two behave the same, though?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Suppress some NOTICE messages from REINDEX command.
> 
> This actually suppresses NOTICE messages in the reindexdb shell command.  
> Shouldn't those two behave the same, though?

Not sure.  I don't think the shell command and the SQL command have to
provide the same feedback.  I don't think createuser does.  Does
vacuumdb?

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

> Not sure.  I don't think the shell command and the SQL command have
> to provide the same feedback.  I don't think createuser does.  Does
> vacuumdb?

Both createuser and vacuumdb provide the same feedback as the 
corresponding SQL commands.

The more I think about it, the patch that just went in is an outright 
mistake.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Not sure.  I don't think the shell command and the SQL command have
> > to provide the same feedback.  I don't think createuser does.  Does
> > vacuumdb?
> 
> Both createuser and vacuumdb provide the same feedback as the 
> corresponding SQL commands.
> 
> The more I think about it, the patch that just went in is an outright 
> mistake.

Well, we had a lot of discussion when this patch was posted, and seveal
people liked it.  I need someone else to say they want it reverted.

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Both createuser and vacuumdb provide the same feedback as the 
>> corresponding SQL commands.
>> 
>> The more I think about it, the patch that just went in is an outright 
>> mistake.

> Well, we had a lot of discussion when this patch was posted, and seveal
> people liked it.  I need someone else to say they want it reverted.

I agree with Peter: that patch is a quick hack not a considered solution.

As for "several people said they liked it", where?  I don't see even
one followup to
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-06/msg00049.php
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Both createuser and vacuumdb provide the same feedback as the 
> >> corresponding SQL commands.
> >> 
> >> The more I think about it, the patch that just went in is an outright 
> >> mistake.
> 
> > Well, we had a lot of discussion when this patch was posted, and seveal
> > people liked it.  I need someone else to say they want it reverted.
> 
> I agree with Peter: that patch is a quick hack not a considered solution.
> 
> As for "several people said they liked it", where?  I don't see even
> one followup to
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-06/msg00049.php

The issue is that the patch was at the end of a thread, and no one said
they didn't like it, and no one said anything when it was placed in the
patch queue.  I take that as acceptance.

But now that two people do not like it, patch reverted.

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +