Re: proposal - plpgsql unique statement id

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal - plpgsql unique statement id
Date: 2019-01-24 22:08:45
Message-ID: 3627.1548367725@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> committed

Why didn't this patch modify the dumping logic in pl_funcs.c to print
the IDs? I'm not aware of other cases where we intentionally omit
fields from debug-support printouts.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-01-24 22:11:11 Re: Old protocol fastpath calls borked?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-01-24 22:04:32 Re: Old protocol fastpath calls borked?