Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Date
Msg-id 52D661B3.3000207@joh.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/15/14 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
>> Hmm.  How about:
>>
>>    plpgsql.warnings = 'all' # enable all warnings, defauls to the empty
>> list, i.e. no warnings
>>    plpgsql.warnings = 'shadow, unused' # enable just "shadow" and "unused"
>> warnings
>>    plpgsql.warnings_as_errors = on # defaults to off?
>>
>> This interface is a lot more flexible and should address Jim's concerns as
>> well.
>>
>
> In this context is not clean if this option is related to plpgsql compile
> warnings, plpgsql executor warnings or general warnings.
>
> plpgsql.compile_warnings = "disabled", "enabled", "fatal"

I agree, it's better to include the word "compiler" in the GUC name. 
But do we really need WARNING, ERROR and FATAL levels though?  Would 
WARNING and ERROR not be enough?



Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: identify table oid for an AggState during plan tree initialization