Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID
Date: 2023-04-04 16:57:12
Message-ID: CAFj8pRA+gVd2M4TJ+Hs4ibGW4N5zRwjvwQph1z2X+y_GjeAGqw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

út 4. 4. 2023 v 16:20 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > There is reduced patch + regress tests
>
> One more thing: I do not think it's appropriate to allow this in
> GET STACKED DIAGNOSTICS. That's about reporting the place where
> an error occurred, not the current location. Eventually it might
> be interesting to retrieve the OID of the function that contained
> the error, but that would be a pretty complicated patch and I am
> not sure it's worth it. In the meantime I think we should just
> forbid it.
>
> If we do that, then the confusion you were concerned about upthread
> goes away and we could shorten the keyword back down to "pg_routine_oid",
> which seems like a good thing for our carpal tunnels.
>
> Thoughts?
>

has sense

updated patch attached

Regards

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
plpgsql-get-routine-oid.patch text/x-patch 5.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-04-04 17:12:33 Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command
Previous Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2023-04-04 16:54:33 Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys