From: | "P(dot) Scott DeVos" <scott(at)countrysidetechnology(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plpython tracebacks |
Date: | 2006-02-22 23:30:39 |
Message-ID: | 43FCF41F.8030607@countrysidetechnology.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Actually, don't worry about it -- I've made the corrections I had in
> mind myself. Attached is a revised patch. On looking closer, I didn't
> really like the way the patch accumulated the lines of the traceback:
> AFAICS _PyString_Join() is not an "official" Python C API function (it's
> not documented, at any rate), and besides it is cleaner and more
> efficient to build up the traceback string in a StringInfo rather than
> using Python lists and strings.
>
I like it. You can tell I'm a python programmer, not a C programmer.
Question:
Are you sure this works: "PyString_AsString(lno)"? lno is a python
integer object. Maybe we want, "PyString_AsString(PyObject_Str(lno))"
> The attached patch isn't quite finished: "No Traceback" when there is no
> traceback information doesn't seem like the best message
OK, how about "There is no traceback information"
, I need to
> update the regression tests and some comments, etc. But I plan to apply
> something similar in substance to the attached patch to HEAD in the next
> day or two, barring objections.
>
Thanks for your attention to this!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | P. Scott DeVos | 2006-02-22 23:42:19 | Re: plpython tracebacks |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-02-22 22:47:26 | Re: plpython tracebacks |