Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Date
Msg-id 5328A09F.2070902@joh.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
List pgsql-hackers
On 3/18/14, 7:56 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Ok, so I took the liberty of rewriting the patch so that it uses
> plpgsql.extra_warnings and plpgsql.extra_errors configuration variables
> with possible values "none", "all" and "shadow" ("none" being the default).
> Updated doc and regression tests to reflect the code changes, everything
> builds and tests pass just fine.

Cool, thanks!

> I did one small change (that I think was agreed anyway) from Marko's
> original patch in that warnings are only emitted during function
> creation, no runtime warnings and no warnings for inline (DO) plpgsql
> code either as I really don't think these optional warnings/errors
> during runtime are a good idea.

Not super excited, but I can live with that.

> Note that the patch does not really handle the list of values as list,
> basically "all" and "shadow" are translated to true and proper handling
> of this is left to whoever will want to implement additional checks. I
> think this approach is fine as I don't see the need to build frameworks
> here and it was same in the original patch.

Yeah, I don't think rushing all that logic into 9.4 would be such a good 
idea.  Especially since it's not necessary at all.


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire