Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.
От | Tomonari Katsumata |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAC55fYcjT5MvYEk=t0rs--mRSkEBoAPoQM8bpdBfw4v5qEotxA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
2014-03-10 23:45 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata.tomonari@po.ntts.co.jp> writes:Uh, that was one example of what it might be good for; I doubt that the
> Adding FATAL and PANIC to client_min_messages is done at below-commit.
> 8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
> According to the commit log, it seems that the purpose
> is suppressing to be sent error message to client when "DROP TABLE".
> In those days(pre 8.1), we did not have "DROP IF EXISTS" syntax,
> so it was useful.
> If this was the reason, now(from 8.2) we have "DROP IF EXISTS" syntax,
use-case has now vanished entirely. While I'm still dubious about the
reliability of suppressing error messages, if people have been using this
type of coding for nearly 10 years then it probably works well enough
... and more to the point, they won't thank us for arbitrarily removing
it.
Maybe so.
I think we should leave established practice alone here. It might be
confusing at first glance, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing.
I see.
If we delete it, it maybe become more confusing thing.
If we delete it, it maybe become more confusing thing.
Thank you for your opinion.
regards,
---------------
---------------
Tomonari Katsumata
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: