2015-04-24 12:11 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com>: > Entering the discussion because this is a huge pain for me in my daily > work as well. > > This is not a reply to any specific post in this thread, but my first > message in the thread. > > I see a great value in providing both a GUC and a new RAISE syntax. > The different benefits of the two are maybe obvious, but perhaps worth > pointing out: > GUC: Good because you don't have to change any existing code. > RAISE syntax: Good because you can control exactly what message should > be emitted or not be emitted at that line of code. > > I think preserving backwards compatibility is very important. > Not changing the default is not a problem for me, as long as it can be > overridden. > > Whatever the default behaviour is, I think the need expressed by all > users in this thread boils down to any of these two sentences: > > "I want CONTEXT to be (DISPLAYED|SUPPRESSED) for (ALL|ONLY THIS LINE) > RAISE (NOTICE|WARNING|ERROR)" > OR > "I don't want to change the default current behaviour of CONTEXT" > > So we basically need a boolean setting value, where: > NULL means the default behaviour > TRUE means DISPLAY CONTEXT > FALSE means SUPPRESS CONTEXT > > And the (ALL|ONLY THIS) part translates into using, > * a GUC to change behaviour for ALL lines of code, > * or using the RAISE syntax to change the behaviour of ONLY THIS line of > code. > > And then we have the different message levels, for which CONTEXT is > sometimes desirable in some situations: > * The RAISE syntax allows controlling any message level in a natural > way, as the message level is part of the syntax. > * Allowing the same control using GUC would mean the message level > would need to be part of the GUC key name, which means either add > multiple GUCs, one for each message level, or only allow controlling > the most important one and ignore the possibly need to control the > other message levels. > > If it would be possible to somehow combine multiple message levels in > the same GUC, that would solve the latter problem. > > We already have comma separated values for many GUCs, so maybe we > could use that approach here as well. > > It looks like adding these two GUCs would meet the demands of all users: > > >>>>>
> suppress_context_messages (enum) > display_context_messages (enum) > <<<<< This proposal looks very practical - it can be very good start point - and it doesn't block any next discuss about enhancing RAISE statement, what I would to have too (bat can be separate issue). I like it. Regards Pavel > > This would allow doing something crazy as: > > suppress_context_messages = warning,error > display_context_messages = notice >
