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 |
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 |