From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2014-01-20 13:05:42 |
Message-ID: | 52DD1F26.4070306@joh.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/20/14 1:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>> What's so hard about plpgsql.warnings='all'? Or if the fact that it's a
>> list is your concern, I'm not going to oppose to making it a boolean.
>
> Sure, that'd be fine. What I don't want is to have to start each function with:
>
> #option warn_this
> #option warn_that
> #option warn_theotherthing
> #option warn_somethingelse
> #option warn_yetanotherthing
> #option warn_whatdoesthisdoagain
Right. Completely agreed. The only reason I had them in the patch is
to have the ability to turn *off* a specific warning for a particular
function. But even that's of a bit dubious a value.
> Also, I think that the way we've been doing it, each of those needs to
> become a PL/pgsql keyword. That's going to become a problem at some
> point.
Yeah, probably. :-(
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-20 13:24:36 | Re: ALTER TABLESPACE ... MOVE ALL TO ... |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-20 12:55:06 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |