Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaYPkVDRLd_yAhiZgAuQqr3uW8YRc7_v5c7CD9Eqp=VgA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
Responses Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump
Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>> It would seem that a simple solution would be to add an elevel argument
>> to ProcessGUCArray and then call it with NOTICE in the case that
>> check_function_bodies is true.  None of the contrib modules call
>> ProcessGUCArray, but should we worry that some external module does?
>
> attached is a rough patch that does exactly that, if we are worried
> about an api change we could simple do a ProcessGUCArrayNotice() in the
> backbranches if that approach is actually sane.

This patch has some definite coding-style issues, but those should be
easy to fix.  The bigger thing I worry about is whether distributing
the decision as to what elevel ought to be used here all over the code
base is indeed sane.  Perhaps that ship has already sailed, though.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v5
Next
From: Tomonari Katsumata
Date:
Subject: The PostgreSQL License requires "LICENSE" file?