| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Date: | 2014-01-15 10:23:47 |
| Message-ID: | 52D661B3.3000207@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/14 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
>> Hmm. How about:
>>
>> plpgsql.warnings = 'all' # enable all warnings, defauls to the empty
>> list, i.e. no warnings
>> plpgsql.warnings = 'shadow, unused' # enable just "shadow" and "unused"
>> warnings
>> plpgsql.warnings_as_errors = on # defaults to off?
>>
>> This interface is a lot more flexible and should address Jim's concerns as
>> well.
>>
>
> In this context is not clean if this option is related to plpgsql compile
> warnings, plpgsql executor warnings or general warnings.
>
> plpgsql.compile_warnings = "disabled", "enabled", "fatal"
I agree, it's better to include the word "compiler" in the GUC name.
But do we really need WARNING, ERROR and FATAL levels though? Would
WARNING and ERROR not be enough?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2014-01-15 10:24:46 | Re: identify table oid for an AggState during plan tree initialization |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-01-15 10:20:14 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |