| 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 21:10:42 |
| Message-ID: | 5328B652.8000600@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Petr,
On 3/18/14, 8:38 PM, I wrote:
>> 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.
I'm sorry, that came out wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, I believe we have a consensus that
*runtime-only* warnings are not a terribly good idea. The warnings in
this patch were emitted originally all the time because I wanted to
maximize their visibility. But I think that has a bit of the same
problems as run-time warnings do; who's gonna notice them?
In any case, I think you guys have the situation under control and if
this patch gets committed like this, it solves my issues. Thanks for
your work here.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-03-18 21:21:22 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-03-18 20:59:59 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |