Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: proposal: better support for debugging of overloaded functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: better support for debugging of overloaded functions
Date: 2011-11-21 18:49:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmobO3PT8aRf3KZUQS_Uc0c_mKftXk=Fa=ueUETE0tqGF3g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is possible to add GUC variable plpgsql.log_function_signature (maybe
> just log_function_signature (for all PL))? I am not sure about GUC
> name.
>
> When this variable is true, then CONTEXT line will contain a qualified
> function's signature instead function name

Sure, but why?  If it's possible to do that, I think we should just do
it always.  It might be a net reduction in readability for people who
don't use overloading but do have functions with very long names and
lots and lots of arguments, but even if you think that's good design,
I think the general principle that an error message should uniquely
identify the object responsible for the error ought to take
precedence.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-21 19:05:54
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (plan off, rewrite off) for benchmarking
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-21 18:45:18
Subject: Re: psql \ir filename normalization

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group