Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRA+gVd2M4TJ+Hs4ibGW4N5zRwjvwQph1z2X+y_GjeAGqw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID
List pgsql-hackers


út 4. 4. 2023 v 16:20 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> There is reduced patch + regress tests

One more thing: I do not think it's appropriate to allow this in
GET STACKED DIAGNOSTICS.  That's about reporting the place where
an error occurred, not the current location.  Eventually it might
be interesting to retrieve the OID of the function that contained
the error, but that would be a pretty complicated patch and I am
not sure it's worth it.  In the meantime I think we should just
forbid it.

If we do that, then the confusion you were concerned about upthread
goes away and we could shorten the keyword back down to "pg_routine_oid",
which seems like a good thing for our carpal tunnels.

Thoughts?

has sense

updated patch attached

Regards

Pavel

                        regards, tom lane
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command