Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Date: 2014-03-03 23:55:39
Message-ID: 20466.1393890939@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> writes:
> I strongly think it should be made an error, because it is most
> certainly an error, and even if it's not, it's at least bad coding
> style and the code should be fixed anyway, or if one is lazy, turn
> this off in the config file and make it a warning instead.

You're reasoning from a false premise: it's *not* necessarily an error.
If this were such a bad idea as you claim, generations of programming
language designers wouldn't have made their languages work like this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-04 00:15:27 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Kouhei Kaigai 2014-03-03 23:25:40 Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node)