Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors
Date: 2014-03-20 08:01:37
Message-ID: 532AA061.7080804@joh.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/20/14, 12:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isn't the entire point to create a framework in which more tests will
> be added later?
>
> Also, adding GUC_LIST_INPUT later is not really cool since it changes
> the parsing behavior for the GUC. If it's going to be a list, it should
> be one from day zero.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this. If the only allowed values
are "none", "variable_shadowing" and "all", how is the behaviour for
those going to change if we make it a list for 9.5?

Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2014-03-20 08:47:59 Re: four minor proposals for 9.5
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2014-03-20 08:00:50 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: