On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hey, maybe we could add a UUID to each ereport() call site ;-) > >> I can't help but feel we're designing a $10.00 solution to a $0.25 >> problem. I think I'd actually support adding something like a UUID to >> every ereport and a filtering mechanism that works on that basis. But >> let's face it: this particular message is exponentially more annoying >> than average. We're basically forcing application developers to jump >> through hoops to avoid filling the log with unnecessary chatter. I've >> spent a bunch of time trying to get rid of them in various past jobs, >> and I've never gotten any benefit out of having them. Maybe the >> solution is to just demote that particular message to DEBUG1 and >> declare that closing the connection is a perfectly sensible way for an >> application to indicate that the conversation is over. > > I could support that with one tweak: it's only DEBUG1 if you don't > have an open transaction. Dropping the connection while in a > transaction *is* an application bug; I don't care how lazy the app > programmer is feeling.
I agree. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
