| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks |
| Date: | 2018-03-19 20:47:53 |
| Message-ID: | 15e8dd08-4042-9b01-01fd-01f952a4ce33@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I'm looking at the updated patch (plpgsql-extra-check-180316.patch), and
this time it applies and builds OK. The one thing I noticed is that the
documentation still uses the old wording for strict_multi_assignement:
WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
This was reworded to "Number of source and target fields in assignment
does not match."
Otherwise it seems fine to me, and I'm tempted to mark it RFC once the
docs get fixed. Stephen, any objections?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terry Phelps | 2018-03-19 20:50:04 | Re: Compile error while building postgresql 10.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-19 20:46:32 | Re: Compile error while building postgresql 10.3 |