Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

Hello Pavel and Tomas,

On Tue, March 20, 2018 12:36 am, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2018-03-19 21:47 GMT+01:00 Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking at the updated patch (plpgsql-extra-check-180316.patch), and
>> this time it applies and builds OK. The one thing I noticed is that the
>> documentation still uses the old wording for strict_multi_assignement:
>>
>> WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
>> HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
>> WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
>> HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
>>
>> This was reworded to "Number of source and target fields in assignment
>> does not match."
>>

I believe the correct wording should be:

"Number of source and target fields in assignment do not match."

ecause comparing one number to the other means "the number A and B _do_
not match", not "the number A does not match number B".

Also there is an inconsistent quoting here:

+ <para>
+ Setting <varname>plpgsql.extra_warnings</varname>, or
+ <varname>plpgsql.extra_errors</varname>, as appropriate, to
<literal>all</literal>

no quotes for 'all'.

+ is encouraged in development and/or testing environments.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ These additional checks are enabled through the configuration variables
+ <varname>plpgsql.extra_warnings</varname> for warnings and
+ <varname>plpgsql.extra_errors</varname> for errors. Both can be set
either to
+ a comma-separated list of checks, <literal>"none"</literal> or
+ <literal>"all"</literal>.

quotes here around '"all"'. I think it should be one or the other in both
cases.

Also:

+ Currently
+ the list of available checks includes only one:

but then it lists more than one check?

Best wishes,

Tels