
> Actually, an interesting idea would be to leave NOTICE alone and make
> the more serious messages WARNING.  The problem with that is I think
> INFO is clearer as something for client/user, and LOG something for the
> logs.  I don't think NOTICE has the same conotation.  I just thought I
> would mention that possibility.
> 
> So, with WARNING, NOTICE would go away and become INFO or WARNING, and
> DEBUG goes away to become DEBUG1-5.  With DEBUG gone, our need to add
> PG_* to the beginning of the elog symbols may not be necessary.

Now I am verwirrt (== brain all knots) :-)

My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of 
clients will currently parse "NOTICE".

I also like LOG, since I don't like the current NOTICES in the log.
Imho INFO and WARNING would be nothing for the log per default.
LOG would be things that are only of concern to the DBA.
My preferred client level would prbbly be WARNING (no INFO).

Andreas

Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:01:12 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: elog() patch
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> 
> > Actually, an interesting idea would be to leave NOTICE alone and make
> > the more serious messages WARNING.  The problem with that is I think
> > INFO is clearer as something for client/user, and LOG something for the
> > logs.  I don't think NOTICE has the same conotation.  I just thought I
> > would mention that possibility.
> > 
> > So, with WARNING, NOTICE would go away and become INFO or WARNING, and
> > DEBUG goes away to become DEBUG1-5.  With DEBUG gone, our need to add
> > PG_* to the beginning of the elog symbols may not be necessary.
> 
> Now I am verwirrt (== brain all knots) :-)
> 
> My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
> For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
> Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of 
> clients will currently parse "NOTICE".

OK, now that the current elog() patch seems to be OK with everyone, we
can discuss if we want to change the remaining non-INFO NOTICE messages
to WARNING.  Seems to more closely match the SQL standard.  All messages
will continue using the 'N' protocol type so this shouldn't be an issue.
I don't know any clients that parse the NOTICE: tag, but they are going
to have to change things for INFO: anyway so we might as well make the
change during 7.3 too.

Comments?

> I also like LOG, since I don't like the current NOTICES in the log.

Good, that was one of my goals.

> Imho INFO and WARNING would be nothing for the log per default.
> LOG would be things that are only of concern to the DBA.
> My preferred client level would prbbly be WARNING (no INFO).

Well, that is interesting.  Currently we would send WARNING/NOTICE to
the logs because it is an exceptional condition, though not as serious
as error.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: elog() patch
...
> My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
> For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
> Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of
> clients will currently parse "NOTICE".

fwiw, I find the connotations of these terms to be, in increasing order
of severity:

  INFO, NOTICE, WARNING

though the distinction between INFO and NOTICE is not so great that one
absolutely could not replace the other.

                     - Thomas

Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:53:53 -0800
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: elog() patch
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > My take was to have WARNING and NOTICE, yours is WARNING and INFO ?
> > For me INFO is also better to understand than NOTICE.
> > Not sure that alone is worth the change though, since lots of
> > clients will currently parse "NOTICE".
> 
> fwiw, I find the connotations of these terms to be, in increasing order
> of severity:
> 
>   INFO, NOTICE, WARNING
> 
> though the distinction between INFO and NOTICE is not so great that one
> absolutely could not replace the other.

Yes, that was my thought to.  I am not sure we have any need for NOTICE
when we have INFO and WARNING.  The NOTICE sort of kept both meanings,
and we don't need that anymore.

On a humorous note, when we got the code from Berkeley, WARN was the
original tag to error out a query.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:37:00 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: elog() patch