On 2 May 2012 01:13, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases, and > fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would be > really workable. My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's invent > some new error severities" is not close to reality and will break all > sorts of stuff.
I now accept that your proposal to derive magnitude from SQLSTATE was better than my earlier proposal to invent a new severity level, though I do of course also agree that that approach necessitates refining the SQLSTATEs in some cases. On 2 May 2012 01:05, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, the fact is that most people do not log SQLSTATEs. And even if > they did, they're not going to know to grep for 53|58|maybe F0|XX. > What we need is an easy way for people to pick out any log entries > that represent conditions that should never occur as a result of any > legitimate user activity. Like, with grep. And, without needing to > have a PhD in Postgresology. I couldn't agree more. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
