Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID
Date: 2023-04-04 14:20:00
Message-ID: 1467101.1680618000@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There is reduced patch + regress tests

One more thing: I do not think it's appropriate to allow this in
GET STACKED DIAGNOSTICS. That's about reporting the place where
an error occurred, not the current location. Eventually it might
be interesting to retrieve the OID of the function that contained
the error, but that would be a pretty complicated patch and I am
not sure it's worth it. In the meantime I think we should just
forbid it.

If we do that, then the confusion you were concerned about upthread
goes away and we could shorten the keyword back down to "pg_routine_oid",
which seems like a good thing for our carpal tunnels.

Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-04-04 14:22:14 Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-04-04 13:50:05 Re: Why enable_hashjoin Completely disables HashJoin