Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

Hi

2016-02-29 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
>
>> 0003 is the most controversial. It removes the ability to pass message
>> as keyword argument. My reasoning was that keyword arguments are
>> usually optional and configure extra aspects of the function call
>> while message is required and fundamental so therefore it should be
>> positional. If you allow it as keyword as well, you have to deal with
>> the ambiguity of writing plpy.info('a message', message='a keyword arg
>> message, does this overwrite the first one or what?').
>>
>
> I though about it before and I prefer variant with possibility to enter
> message as keyword parameter. The advantage of this solution is simple
> usage dictionary value as parameter with possibility to set all fields.
>
> We can check collision and we can raise a error. Same technique is used in
> plpgsql:
>
> postgres=# do $$ begin raise warning 'kuku' using message='NAZDAR'; end;
> $$;
> ERROR: RAISE option already specified: MESSAGE
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 1 at RAISE
> postgres=#
>
> What do you think?
>
> Pavel
>
>
>>
>> For the code with my patches on top on I ran the PL/Python tests for
>> 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 3.5. Everything passed.
>>
>> Can you have a look at the patches, fold the ones you agree with on
>> top of yours and send the final version? With that I think this will
>> be Ready for Committer.
>>
>
>
I merged your patches without @3 (many thanks for it). Instead @3 I
disallow double message specification (+regress test)

Regards

Pavel