Re: elog() proposal

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Actually, it is even simpler.  Let's do this:
> > Client levels:
> >     DEBUG, LOG, INFO, NOTICE, ERROR
> > Server levels:
> >      DEBUG, INFO, LOG, NOTICE, ERROR, FATAL, CRASH
> 
> Hmm, so the two cases have different ideas of the ordering of the
> levels?  Could be confusing, but it does keep the configuration
> entries simple-looking.
> 
> What's your reaction to Peter's comments that the whole notion of
> a linear set of elog levels should be abandoned?

I don't want to get into a second-system effect where we develop a
system that is hard to manage.  We do need error codes, and I think this
system will fit into that when we decide to do it.  

However, we would still need a system of reporting control if we went
with codes.  I don't see a way around that.  I have seen the linear
error systems where everything is numbers, and things that are 9X are
serious and -1X are not, but it seems quite confusing.  Eventually we
can base codes on these levels we have defined and go from there.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026