Hi, On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 10/22/15 3:20 AM, dinesh kumar wrote: > > + <row> > > + <entry> > > + > <literal><function>pg_report_log(<parameter>loglevel</><type>text</>, > <parameter>message</> <type>anyelement</>[, <parameter>ishidestmt</> > <type>boolean</> ] [, <parameter>detail</> <type> text</>] [, > <parameter>hint</> <type>text</>] [, <parameter>sqlstate</> > <type>text</>])</function></literal> > > + </entry> > > + <entry><type>void</type></entry> > > + <entry> > > + Report message or error. > > + </entry> > > + </row> > > I haven't seen this discussed before, but I don't find the name > pg_report_log particularly good. Why not jut pg_log? > > Thanks for your comments. Sorry for my too late response here. I'm sure pg_log is good. But, I don't see it's more easily understandable. What I mean is, If we see "pg_log" as function name, we can't say that, what this function is going to do by just reading it's name. For example, we have "pg_write_file". By reading the function name itself, we can define this, this is the function is for writing contents into given file. So, shall we make this pg_report_log TO pg_write_log OR pg_ereport OR <SOME OTHER GOOD SUGGESTIONS> from you. -- Regards, Dinesh manojadinesh.blogspot.com
