Peter writes:
> > SQL92 has WARNING, would that be a suitable addition to NOTICE ?
> > INFO would not be added since it is like old NOTICE which would stay.
> > So, instead of introducing a lighter level we would introduce a
> > stronger level. (WARNING more important than NOTICE)
> > If we change, we might as well adopt some more SQL'ism.
> 
> At the client side SQL knows two levels, namely a "completion condition"
> and an "exception condition".  In the PostgreSQL client protocol, these
> are distinguished as N and E message packets.  The tags of the messages
> are irrelevant, they just serve as a guide to the user reading the
> message.

I am referring to "completion condition" messages according to SQLSTATE:

00xxx:	Success
01xxx:	Success with Warning
02xxx:	Success but no rows found
03 and > :	Failure

I see that there is no notion of INFO, thus I agree that INFO should not be
something normally sent to the user. INFO could be the first DEBUG Level,
or completely skipped.

I think that LOG would be more worth the trouble than INFO.

Andreas

Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:22:14 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: elog() patch
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD writes:

> I am referring to "completion condition" messages according to SQLSTATE:
>
> 00xxx:	Success

This is an INFO (or no message at all).  The idea was that things like the
automatic index creation for a PK would be INFO, and you could easily turn
off INFO somehow.

> 01xxx:	Success with Warning

This is a NOTICE.

> 02xxx:	Success but no rows found

This is nothing special.

> 03 and > :	Failure

This is is ERROR or above.

> I see that there is no notion of INFO, thus I agree that INFO should not be
> something normally sent to the user. INFO could be the first DEBUG Level,
> or completely skipped.

It's sort of the "tip" level.  A lot of people don't like to see them, so
it's reasonable to separate them from NOTICE.  You could think of them as
first debug level, if you like.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:06:03 -0500 (EST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: elog() patch