Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2015-07-09 18:08:30
Message-ID: CAHyXU0yUwvaJr4zVYO_UTCxju0mpEktZDMUXb8pUrDaNq7dhUw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > second version of this patch
>> >
>> > make check-world passed
>>
>> quickly scanning the patch, the implementation is trivial (minus
>> regression test adjustments), and is, IMSNSHO, the right solution.
>
>
> yes, it is right way - the behave of RAISE statement will be much more
> cleaner
>>
>>
>> Several of the source level comments need some minor wordsmithing and
>> the GUCs are missing documentation. If we've got consensus on the
>> approach, I'll pitch in on that.
>
> thank you

revised patch attached. added GUC docs and cleaned up pg_settings
language. Also tested patch and it works beautifully.

Note, Pavel's patch does adjust default behavior to what we think is
the "right" settings.

merlin

Attachment Content-Type Size
min_context-20150709-02.patch text/x-patch 100.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-07-09 18:23:15 Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Previous Message Sawada Masahiko 2015-07-09 18:05:26 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.