Re: proposal - plpgsql unique statement id

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal - plpgsql unique statement id
Date: 2019-01-25 08:44:28
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBWwxq5o1ATsRxXRCGLeptiOROg-aGqtWfQUXzgJbOuiA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

čt 24. 1. 2019 v 23:08 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > committed
>
> Why didn't this patch modify the dumping logic in pl_funcs.c to print
> the IDs? I'm not aware of other cases where we intentionally omit
> fields from debug-support printouts.
>

Currently we don't print lineno, what is maybe for user more important
information.

I looked to the code, and now I am thinking so it is little bit harder,
than I expected. Any new information can break output formatting

static void
dump_loop(PLpgSQL_stmt_loop *stmt)
{
dump_ind();
printf("LOOP\n");

dump_stmts(stmt->body);

dump_ind();
printf(" ENDLOOP\n");
}

can looks like

static void
dump_loop(PLpgSQL_stmt_loop *stmt, int stmtid_width)
{
dump_ind();
printf("%*d LOOP\n", stmtid_width, stmt->stmtid);

dump_stmts(stmt->body);

dump_ind();
printf(" ENDLOOP\n");
}

It is some what do you expect ?

Regards

Maybe more simple

static void
dump_loop(PLpgSQL_stmt_loop *stmt, int stmtid_width)
{
dump_ind();
printf("LOOP {%d}\n",stmt->stmtid);

dump_stmts(stmt->body);

dump_ind();
printf(" ENDLOOP\n");
}

Pavel

> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takashi Menjo 2019-01-25 08:52:24 RE: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2019-01-25 08:14:19 RE: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries