| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
| Date: | 2016-03-11 04:19:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRByo_CXMKRsc3YAJCRPWck_CZ0v7U6eD0ZYT21e_kN6ew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
>
> Yes, I think we use this rubric quite often, and I agree it's a good one.
>
> > Trying to e.g. select a different number of columns into a different
> > number of variables in a PL/pgSQL function doesn't throw an error.
> > Bad. :(
>
> Yeah, I'm sympathetic to that request. That seems like poor error
> checking and nothing else.
>
> (But note that I do not rule here.)
>
I am not sure, but maybe this issue is covered by plpgsql_check. But not
possible to check it when dynamic SQL is used.
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-11 05:05:10 | Re: pgsql: Don't vacuum all-frozen pages. |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-11 04:16:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-11 04:28:34 | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-11 04:18:55 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |