Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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