| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pl/python tracebacks |
| Date: | 2011-02-26 15:10:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1298733011.26135.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-02-26 at 09:34 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
> ----- Original message -----
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
> > wrote:
> > > On 24/02/11 14:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Hm, perhaps, I put it in the details, because it sounded like the place
> > > to put information that is not that important, but still helpful. It's
> > > kind of natural to think of the traceback as the detail of the error
> > > message. But if you prefer context, I'm fine with that. You want me to
> > > update the patch to put the traceback in the context?
> >
> > I don't see a response to this question from Peter, but I read his
> > email to indicate that he was hoping you'd rework along these lines.
>
> I can do that, but not until Monday evening.
Well, I was hoping for some other opinion, but I guess my request
stands.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-02-26 15:28:43 | Re: pg_basebackup and wal streaming |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-02-26 15:08:46 | Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions |