Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
От | Gavin Sherry |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0208300956030.11955-100000@linuxworld.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable |
Список | pgsql-patches |
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. Does anyone have a preference here? Gavin
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: