On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:08:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 09/22/2012 11:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Not really, I guess we should for the sake of consistency, although TBH > >> I find it just useless noise and rather wish we hadn't started the > >> trend when we did the first DROP IF NOT EXISTS stuff. > > > Time for a GUC > > existence_notice = none | exists | not_exists | all > > Not another one :-( ... isn't client_min_messages good enough? > > We sort of had this discussion before w.r.t. the notices about creating > primary key indexes etc. I wonder whether we should make a formal > effort to split NOTICE message level into, say, NOTICE and NOVICE > levels, where the latter contains all the "training wheels" stuff that > experienced users would really rather not see. Or maybe just redefine > NOTICE as meaning novice-oriented messages, and push anything that > doesn't seem to fit that categorization into another existing message > level?
I have always wanted a "novice" level, so we could warn about things like unjoined tables. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
