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

On 20/03/14 00:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> TBH, if I thought this specific warning was the only one that would ever
> be there, I'd probably be arguing to reject this patch altogether.

Of course, nobody assumes that it will be the only one.

>
> 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.
>

Actually it does not since it all has to be handled in check/assign hook
anyway.

But nevertheless, I made V6 with doc change suggested by Alvaro and also
added this list handling framework for the GUC params.
In the end it is probably less confusing now that the implementation
uses bitmask instead of bool when the user facing functionality talks
about list...

This obviously needs code review again (I haven't changed tests since
nothing changed from user perspective).


--
  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services