Hello all
2012/11/27 Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 15:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> It would be useful if we issued a NOTICE when an ambiguity is
>> introduced, rather than when using it.
>>
>> Like Bison's reporting of reduce conflicts.
>
> This brings up a very important point, which is that a lot of the code
> is frozen in applications yet invisible at DDL time. So we have to be
> careful that DDL changes have a reasonable impact on the ability to
> continue to compile and execute the previously-working SQL received from
> the applications.
>
> In other words, as I said in another reply, we want to avoid cases where
> something seemingly innocuous (like creating a function) causes
> previously-working SQL to fail due to ambiguity.
>
> As Tom said, detecting the ambiguity at DDL time is not easy, so I'm not
> suggesting that. And I know that creating a function can already cause
> previously-working SQL to fail. I'm just saying we should be careful of
> these situations and not make them more likely than necessary.
>
from my view - a current design works well, but for someone who see pg
first time, there can be lot of surprises.
a) PostgreSQL reports missing functions -- but there are issue in parameters
b) PostgreSQL requests explicit typing string literals to text -- and
again it reports not informative message
so minimally we can enhance a error messages
Regards
Pavel
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
