Re: elog() proposal

> Well, I do.  We don't need the separate user-side error functions
> initially, but eventually we will have to have them.
> 
> So, basically, what this comes down to with respect to your patch:
> 
> 1. Renumbering the error codes breaks backward compatibility *silently*.

OK, so people want the old codes kept.  I just have to warn people that
there will be some funky test structure in elog.c to handle message
*_min_messages tests.  Is that OK?

> 2. CRASH doesn't seem like a good name to me.

OK, changed to FATALALL, which is pretty descriptive.

> 3. I agree with adding a LOG or INFO level between DEBUG and NOTICE.

OK, good, that was the crux of the patch.  The rest was cleanups.

> 
> 4. I don't like the alignment change.  That seems very un-computer-like.

OK, removed, not always two spaces.

--  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