| From: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pl/python tracebacks |
| Date: | 2011-02-26 08:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1298709278.9591.2.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
----- Original message -----
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
> wrote:
> > On 24/02/11 14:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Hm, perhaps, I put it in the details, because it sounded like the place
> > to put information that is not that important, but still helpful. It's
> > kind of natural to think of the traceback as the detail of the error
> > message. But if you prefer context, I'm fine with that. You want me to
> > update the patch to put the traceback in the context?
>
> I don't see a response to this question from Peter, but I read his
> email to indicate that he was hoping you'd rework along these lines.
I can do that, but not until Monday evening.
Jan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-02-26 08:38:31 | Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-02-26 08:19:23 | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |