From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Rushabh Lathia" <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rushabh(dot)lathia(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Function with default value not replacing old definition of the function |
Date: | 2008-12-11 20:51:11 |
Message-ID: | 15544781-9E39-41EE-B242-5AF7AB99DF53@hi-media.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 11 déc. 08 à 21:23, Tom Lane a écrit :
> It's not that easy to produce a message that wouldn't be annoying
> noise.
Something really amazing in PostgreSQL is the HINTs system in error
messages. Almost all the time thoses messages are focused and helping.
I'd see this warning as a HINT maybe:
WARNING: variadic function xxx(int, int[]) already exists
HINT: you would rather not to mask it
Well, I'm not sure WARNING HINTS are supported, it's more a way to
better explain the idea than anything else.
The bottom line was that I'm betting DBA would be happy to know and
wouldn't consider it annoying noise, and for the kind of "Please, I
know what I'm doing" DBAs, maybe some kind of warning_level GUC would
be desirable?
> In particular, it's hard to know whether functions in different
> schemas
> would represent a problem or not.
I'd still vote in favor of the NOTICE/WARNING. I know I'd be happy to
have my beloved PostgreSQL being attentive and focused when maybe I'm
not. Even if this time I was.
Regards,
- --
dim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAklBfT8ACgkQlBXRlnbh1bnCaACfUoRUx+7sADsb13YqQR0PWAho
dKUAoJZCoIzxstAXMRa4VejFkjgdk2jk
=REM9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-11 20:57:22 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-11 20:23:52 | Re: Function with default value not replacing old definition of the function |