| From: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pl/python tracebacks |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 21:28:17 |
| Message-ID: | 4D6EB671.9000600@wulczer.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/03/11 22:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
>> So you end up with a context message saying "PL/Python function %s"
>> and a detail message with the saved detail (if it's present) *and* the
>> traceback. The problem is that the name of the function is already in
>> the traceback, so there's no need for the context *if* there's a
>> traceback present.
>
> I wouldn't actually worry about that bit of redundancy so much. Getting
> proper context for nested calls is much more important.
Here's another version that puts tracebacks in the context field.
I did some tests with the attached test script, calling various of the
functions defined there and the error messages more or less made sense
(or at least were not worse than before).
Cheers,
Jan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| test.sql | text/x-sql | 561 bytes |
| plpython-tracebacks.diff | text/x-patch | 56.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2011-03-02 21:30:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-03-02 21:26:11 | Re: Testing extension upgrade scripts |