| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors |
| Date: | 2014-03-19 23:32:58 |
| Message-ID: | 12903.1395271978@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 19/03/14 19:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think this should have the GUC_LIST_INPUT flag, and ensure that when
>> multiple values are passed, we can process them all in a sane fashion.
> Well, as we said with Marko in the original thread, the proper handling
> is left for whoever wants to add additional parameters, for the current
> implementation proper list handling is not really needed and it will
> only server to increase complexity of this simple patch quite late in
> the release cycle.
TBH, if I thought this specific warning was the only one that would ever
be there, I'd probably be arguing to reject this patch altogether.
Isn't the entire point to create a framework in which more tests will
be added later?
Also, adding GUC_LIST_INPUT later is not really cool since it changes
the parsing behavior for the GUC. If it's going to be a list, it should
be one from day zero.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-03-20 00:10:48 | Re: jsonb status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-19 23:27:52 | Re: Patch to send transaction commit/rollback stats to the stats collector unconditionally. |