| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters |
| Date: | 2014-08-12 17:14:22 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1408121911040.9746@sto |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> one note: this patch can enforce a compatibility issues - a partially
> broken functions, where some badly written RAISE statements was executed
> newer.
> I am not against this patch, but it should be in extra check probably ??
I'm not sure about what you mean by "it should be in extra check".
> Or we have to documented it as potential compatibility issue.
Indeed, as a potential execution error is turned into a certain
compilation error.
If this compatibility point is a blocker, the compilation error can be
turned into a warning, but I would prefer to keep it an error: I'm quite
sure I fell into that pit at least once or twice.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-08-12 17:18:21 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-08-12 17:11:55 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |