Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Date: 2014-01-27 11:04:49
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+Vo87sT0gp--+yuw=mx5vSyju56zNhOaCs2MNkxzHnUA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27 January 2014 10:40, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> For 9.4, we should cut down the patch so it has
>> plpgsql.warnings = none (default) | all | [individual item list]
>
>> plpgsql.warnings_as_errors = off (default) | on
>
> I hope I'm not late for the bikeshedding :)
>
> Why not have 2 similar options:
> plpgsql.warnings = none (default) | all | [individual item list]
> plpgsql.errors = none (default) | all | [individual item list]
>
> That would be cleaner, more flexible, and one less option to
> set if you just want errors and no warnings.

That would allow you to mis-set the parameters and then cause a
runtime error for something that was only a warning at compile time.

Florian's point was well made and we must come up with something that
allows warning/errors at compile time and once accepted, nothing at
run time.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rajeev rastogi 2014-01-27 11:44:49 Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2014-01-27 10:54:13 Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow