Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks
Date: 2018-03-20 04:36:00
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAo8JnOYn00ZC2vH1MrtpnV8ix8S_A4B_zbuCE+9ETF5A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2018-03-19 21:47 GMT+01:00 Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at the updated patch (plpgsql-extra-check-180316.patch), and
> this time it applies and builds OK. The one thing I noticed is that the
> documentation still uses the old wording for strict_multi_assignement:
>
> WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
> HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
> WARNING: Number of evaluated fields does not match expected.
> HINT: strict_multi_assignement check of extra_warnings is active.
>
> This was reworded to "Number of source and target fields in assignment
> does not match."
>

fixed

Regards

Pavel

>
> Otherwise it seems fine to me, and I'm tempted to mark it RFC once the
> docs get fixed. Stephen, any objections?
>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
plpgsql-extra-check-180320.patch text/x-patch 17.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2018-03-20 04:39:26 Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-03-20 04:30:26 Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables