| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Date: | 2014-03-14 11:10:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC9d15v0FMbCVF-+vY1XbqGxNKaJCnVoX9_6CQG-aNYdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-03-14 12:02 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
> On 3/14/14 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> The patch looks fine, apart from some non-guideline code formatting
>> issues.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to. I thought it looked fine.
>
>
> Having looked at gcc and clang, I have a proposal for naming/API
>>
>> We just have two variables
>>
>> plpgsql.compile_warnings = 'list' default = 'none'
>>
>
+1
> plpgsql.compile_errors = 'list' default = 'none'
>>
>> Only possible values in 9.4 are 'shadow', 'all', 'none'
>>
>
what is compile_errors ? We don't allow to ignore any error now.
>
> I'm fine with this. I'm starting to think that runtime warnings are a bad
> idea anyway.
>
+1
Pavel
>
>
> Regards,
> Marko Tiikkaja
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2014-03-14 11:24:44 | Re: Archive recovery won't be completed on some situation. |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2014-03-14 11:07:17 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |