From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |
Date: | 2015-07-09 18:08:30 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yUwvaJr4zVYO_UTCxju0mpEktZDMUXb8pUrDaNq7dhUw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > second version of this patch
>> >
>> > make check-world passed
>>
>> quickly scanning the patch, the implementation is trivial (minus
>> regression test adjustments), and is, IMSNSHO, the right solution.
>
>
> yes, it is right way - the behave of RAISE statement will be much more
> cleaner
>>
>>
>> Several of the source level comments need some minor wordsmithing and
>> the GUCs are missing documentation. If we've got consensus on the
>> approach, I'll pitch in on that.
>
> thank you
revised patch attached. added GUC docs and cleaned up pg_settings
language. Also tested patch and it works beautifully.
Note, Pavel's patch does adjust default behavior to what we think is
the "right" settings.
merlin
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
min_context-20150709-02.patch | text/x-patch | 100.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-09 18:23:15 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-07-09 18:05:26 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |