| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Date: | 2014-01-20 12:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ_wUoo+O=cv8kyQBcWuCjoy1M7Zj3xf6wRNbF9=iW5WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> What's so hard about plpgsql.warnings='all'? Or if the fact that it's a
> list is your concern, I'm not going to oppose to making it a boolean.
Sure, that'd be fine. What I don't want is to have to start each function with:
#option warn_this
#option warn_that
#option warn_theotherthing
#option warn_somethingelse
#option warn_yetanotherthing
#option warn_whatdoesthisdoagain
Also, I think that the way we've been doing it, each of those needs to
become a PL/pgsql keyword. That's going to become a problem at some
point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-01-20 13:05:42 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-01-20 12:43:27 | Re: PoC: Partial sort |