Thread: syntax warning on
I'm just starting to look around the postgres source code. Anyway, I saw a few lines about syntax warnings in psql that were ifdefed out because they were too annoying. This patch puts it back in, but only gives the error once per session. Anyway, I am just looking around at the source code, let me know if you find little stuff like this useful. Jon johnnyb6@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Attachment
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it withing the next 48 hours.
> I'm just starting to look around the postgres source code. Anyway, I saw
> a few lines about syntax warnings in psql that were ifdefed out because
> they were too annoying. This patch puts it back in, but only gives the
> error once per session.
>
> Anyway, I am just looking around at the source code, let me know if you
> find little stuff like this useful.
>
> Jon
>
> johnnyb6@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Content-Description: psql-diff.txt
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> I'd suggest that this patch not be applied at least until we reopen the > discussion and conclude that raising the annoyance level is A Good > Thing. The last time we had concluded that the role of the backend was > not to teach "proper SQL" but to Just Do It. > > Complaining once per session does not give the predictable behavior I > would want. Removed from unapplied queue. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Jonathan Bartlett writes: > I'm just starting to look around the postgres source code. Anyway, I saw > a few lines about syntax warnings in psql that were ifdefed out because > they were too annoying. This patch puts it back in, but only gives the > error once per session. It was deemed too annoying because it was too annoying. Making it merely less annoying is not the solution. Basically, there is no problem here, it's fine the way it is. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
>> I'm just starting to look around the postgres source code. Anyway, I saw
>> a few lines about syntax warnings in psql that were ifdefed out because
>> they were too annoying. This patch puts it back in, but only gives the
>> error once per session.
That strikes me as only very slightly less annoying than the original.
The message was removed for a reason, and I don't particularly want to
see it put back (in any form).
regards, tom lane
> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: > http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches > I will try to apply it withing the next 48 hours. > > I'm just starting to look around the postgres source code. Anyway, I saw > > a few lines about syntax warnings in psql that were ifdefed out because > > they were too annoying. This patch puts it back in, but only gives the > > error once per session. Uh, the warnings were commented out *because they were too annoying*, but were left in as a placeholder for doing something different later. I'm not sure that the "something different" should be "annoying only sometimes" ;) I'd suggest that this patch not be applied at least until we reopen the discussion and conclude that raising the annoyance level is A Good Thing. The last time we had concluded that the role of the backend was not to teach "proper SQL" but to Just Do It. Complaining once per session does not give the predictable behavior I would want. Comments? - Thomas