Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow

2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>

> On 1/15/14 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
>>
>>> Hmm. How about:
>>>
>>> plpgsql.warnings = 'all' # enable all warnings, defauls to the empty
>>> list, i.e. no warnings
>>> plpgsql.warnings = 'shadow, unused' # enable just "shadow" and
>>> "unused"
>>> warnings
>>> plpgsql.warnings_as_errors = on # defaults to off?
>>>
>>> This interface is a lot more flexible and should address Jim's concerns
>>> as
>>> well.
>>>
>>>
>> In this context is not clean if this option is related to plpgsql compile
>> warnings, plpgsql executor warnings or general warnings.
>>
>> plpgsql.compile_warnings = "disabled", "enabled", "fatal"
>>
>
> I agree, it's better to include the word "compiler" in the GUC name. But
> do we really need WARNING, ERROR and FATAL levels though? Would WARNING
> and ERROR not be enough?
>

I am not strong in level names - and it is my subjective opinion only (as
not native speaker)

just

plpgsql.compile_warning=warning

or

plpgsql.compile_warning=error

looks little bit obscure (or as contradiction). More - "fatal" is used by
gcc and some compilers as "stop on first error"

Regards

Pavel

>
>
>
> Regards,
> Marko Tiikkaja
>