Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRB2ns7sGqobyLefjoOkN1UcyNz3W6fZaGu6pym9yanhzg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


2015-07-09 20:08 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > second version of this patch
>> >
>> > make check-world passed
>>
>> quickly scanning the patch, the implementation is trivial (minus
>> regression test adjustments), and is, IMSNSHO, the right solution.
>
>
> yes, it is right way - the behave of RAISE statement will be much more
> cleaner
>>
>>
>> Several of the source level comments need some minor wordsmithing and
>> the GUCs are missing documentation.  If we've got consensus on the
>> approach, I'll pitch in on that.
>
> thank you

revised patch attached. added GUC docs and cleaned up pg_settings
language.  Also tested patch and it works beautifully.

Note, Pavel's patch does adjust default behavior to what we think is
the "right" settings.

Thank you for documentation.

There is small error - default for client_min_context is error - not notice. With this level a diff from regress tests is minimal. Default for log_min_context should be warning.

 Regards

Pavel
 

merlin

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Waits monitoring
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?