> one note: this patch can enforce a compatibility issues - a partially
> broken functions, where some badly written RAISE statements was executed
> newer.
> I am not against this patch, but it should be in extra check probably ??
I'm not sure about what you mean by "it should be in extra check".
> Or we have to documented it as potential compatibility issue.
Indeed, as a potential execution error is turned into a certain
compilation error.
If this compatibility point is a blocker, the compilation error can be
turned into a warning, but I would prefer to keep it an error: I'm quite
sure I fell into that pit at least once or twice.
--
Fabien.
