From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements |
Date: | 2013-01-14 18:01:32 |
Message-ID: | 24759.1358186492@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So far as I can tell, get_create_function_cmd (and lookup_function_oid
>> too) were intentionally designed to not show their queries, and for that
>> matter they go out of their way to produce terse error output if they
>> fail. I'm not sure why we should revisit that choice. In any case
>> it seems silly to change one and not the other.
> Agreed on the second point, but I think I worked on that patch, and I
> don't think that was intentional on my part. You worked on it, too,
> IIRC, so I guess you'll have to comment on your intentions.
> Personally I think -E is one of psql's finer features, so +1 from me
> for making it apply across the board.
Well, fine, but then it should fix both of them and remove
minimal_error_message altogether. I would however suggest eyeballing
what happens when you try "\ef nosuchfunction" (with or without -E).
I'm pretty sure that the reason for the special error handling in these
functions is that the default error reporting was unpleasant for this
use-case.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-14 18:53:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: Small clarification in "34.41. schemata") |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-14 17:56:37 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |