Re: pl/python tracebacks

From: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pl/python tracebacks
Date: 2011-03-02 21:28:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/03/11 22:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
>> So you end up with a context message saying "PL/Python function %s"
>> and a detail message with the saved detail (if it's present) *and* the
>> traceback. The problem is that the name of the function is already in
>> the traceback, so there's no need for the context *if* there's a
>> traceback present.
> I wouldn't actually worry about that bit of redundancy so much. Getting
> proper context for nested calls is much more important.

Here's another version that puts tracebacks in the context field.

I did some tests with the attached test script, calling various of the
functions defined there and the error messages more or less made sense
(or at least were not worse than before).


Attachment Content-Type Size
test.sql text/x-sql 561 bytes
plpython-tracebacks.diff text/x-patch 56.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message daveg 2011-03-02 21:30:34 Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-03-02 21:26:11 Re: Testing extension upgrade scripts