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 10:40:21 |
Message-ID: | 52D66595.4060007@joh.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/14 11:33 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I am not strong in level names - and it is my subjective opinion only (as
> not native speaker)
>
> just
>
> plpgsql.compile_warning=warning
>
> or
>
> plpgsql.compile_warning=error
>
> looks little bit obscure (or as contradiction). More - "fatal" is used by
> gcc and some compilers as "stop on first error"
I was talking about postgres error levels above. If we define "fatal"
to mean ERROR here, I'm quite certain that will confuse people. How's:
plpgsql.compiler_warning_severity = 'error' # disable, warning, error
matching PG error severity levels ("disable" disables, obviously)
plpgsql.compiler_warnings = 'list, of, warnings'
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-01-15 10:57:23 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-01-15 10:37:52 | Re: ISN extension bug? (with patch) |