Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 19:04, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> 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.
my gut feeling is use the words.


--
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749