Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Date: 2014-01-27 07:32:58
Message-ID: CAFj8pRD-1Rw0GvQMH+WJ440Mh_UfmcHV=w784hqi-uWX9OPKwg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Putting this and all future options as keywords seems like a poor
> > choice. Indeed, the # syntax proposed isn't even fully described on
> > list here, nor are examples given in tests. My feeling is that nobody
> > even knows that is being proposed and would likely cause more
> > discussion if they did. So I wish to push back the # syntax to a later
> > release when it has had more discussion. It would be good if you could
> > lead that discussion in later releases.
>

I am returning back to #option syntax

a) it should not be plpgsql keywords
b) it can be nice if validity can be verified by plpgsql plugins and used
by plpgsql plugins much more. Now we can use only GUC for plugin
parametrization, but it is not readable as #option it is.

Regards

Pavel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-01-27 07:33:45 Re: Typo fix in src/backend/catalog/README
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2014-01-27 05:51:57 Re: inherit support for foreign tables