From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
Date: | 2014-03-18 19:38:07 |
Message-ID: | 5328A09F.2070902@joh.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/18/14, 7:56 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Ok, so I took the liberty of rewriting the patch so that it uses
> plpgsql.extra_warnings and plpgsql.extra_errors configuration variables
> with possible values "none", "all" and "shadow" ("none" being the default).
> Updated doc and regression tests to reflect the code changes, everything
> builds and tests pass just fine.
Cool, thanks!
> I did one small change (that I think was agreed anyway) from Marko's
> original patch in that warnings are only emitted during function
> creation, no runtime warnings and no warnings for inline (DO) plpgsql
> code either as I really don't think these optional warnings/errors
> during runtime are a good idea.
Not super excited, but I can live with that.
> Note that the patch does not really handle the list of values as list,
> basically "all" and "shadow" are translated to true and proper handling
> of this is left to whoever will want to implement additional checks. I
> think this approach is fine as I don't see the need to build frameworks
> here and it was same in the original patch.
Yeah, I don't think rushing all that logic into 9.4 would be such a good
idea. Especially since it's not necessary at all.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-18 19:38:42 | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-03-18 19:36:49 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |