From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |
Date: | 2015-07-25 08:01:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAY-H8H1R69ZR_2Q_foPabokc7JyY4xKuN-c9cjVK9Y5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-07-21 16:58 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> wrote:
> > On 07/21/2015 10:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>
> >> where we are with this patch? Can I do some for it?
> >
> >
> > I still feel this approach is misguided, and we should be tweaking psql
> > and/or libpq instead. I don't feel strongly though, and if some other
> > committer wants to pick this up in its current form, I won't object. So
> this
> > patch has reached an impasse, and if no-one else wants to pick this up,
> I'm
> > going to mark this as "Returned with Feedback" and move on.
>
> That's unfortunate. Maybe I'm missing something:
>
> What does a client side implementation offer that a server side
> implementation does not offer?
>
I have not any problem to change the filtering to client side. Primary
question is fix of PLpgSQL RAISE statement issue - The context field
filtering is a necessary follow-up and trivial in both cases.
In this case, it is acceptable for all?
Regards
Pavel
>
> merlin
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-25 08:11:12 | Re: MultiXact member wraparound protections are now enabled |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-07-25 07:42:59 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |