On 02/03/11 22:28, Jan Urbański wrote:
> On 01/03/11 22:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>> So you end up with a context message saying "PL/Python function %s"
>>> and a detail message with the saved detail (if it's present) *and* the
>>> traceback. The problem is that the name of the function is already in
>>> the traceback, so there's no need for the context *if* there's a
>>> traceback present.
>>
>> I wouldn't actually worry about that bit of redundancy so much. Getting
>> proper context for nested calls is much more important.
>
> Here's another version that puts tracebacks in the context field.
>
> I did some tests with the attached test script, calling various of the
> functions defined there and the error messages more or less made sense
> (or at least were not worse than before).
I realized I did not update the patch state in the CF app when I added
this version, so I flipped it back to Ready for Committer now.
Tracebacks are a nice-to-have, so if we decide to drop this one due to
time constraints, I'd understand that. But fixing "raise plpy.Fatal()"
to actually cause a FATAL is something that should be extracted from
this patch and committed, even if the full patch does not make it.
Cheers,
Jan
