Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors
Date
Msg-id 532AA061.7080804@joh.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On 3/20/14, 12:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isn't the entire point to create a framework in which more tests will
> be added later?
>
> Also, adding GUC_LIST_INPUT later is not really cool since it changes
> the parsing behavior for the GUC.  If it's going to be a list, it should
> be one from day zero.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this.  If the only allowed values 
are "none", "variable_shadowing" and "all", how is the behaviour for 
those going to change if we make it a list for 9.5?


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
Next
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: four minor proposals for 9.5