From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Syntax error reporting (was Re: [PATCHES] syntax error position "CREATE FUNCTION" bug fix) |
Date: | 2004-03-22 15:12:01 |
Message-ID: | 29795.1079968321@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>>> More over, I have other ideas for CONTEXT, which should really be a stack.
>> It already is a stack.
> Ok, I agree that there is a "push", but I'm still looking fot the "pop".
> Maybe I missed something, but it seemed to me that strings are appended
> on to the other, and there is no way back.
But the string list is not constructed until the error actually occurs.
You don't need a pop at that point --- the call stack is what it is.
I think you are imagining that outer-level context hooks should be able
to editorialize on what inner-level ones said (or perhaps vice versa?)
but I honestly cannot think of a valid use-case for that.
> What I would have looked for, is a stack on which functions could push
> and pop informations as they want, so that the stack would be always
> available for any error or warning or debug trace down the callgraph.
Look at the existing examples of adjusting the error_context_stack.
They already do all that, they just don't bother to compute the error
strings unless actually needed. I'm not willing to push very much cost
into the non-error path of control when there's no visible payoff.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-03-22 15:27:55 | Re: pg_autovacuum next steps |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-22 14:59:33 | Re: Custom format for pg_dumpall |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-22 16:35:29 | Re: Syntax error reporting (was Re: [PATCHES] syntax error |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-22 15:04:01 | Re: pstrndup() |