On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:56 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Sergei Kornilov <s...@zsrv.org> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> Sure, but what are we going to achieve with that number? What >> >> information user is going to get by that? If it can help us to ensure >> >> that it has reset the expected number of statements, then I can see >> >> the clear usage, but without that, the return value doesn't seem to >> >> have any clear purpose. So, I don't see much value in breaking >> >> compatibility. >> >> >> >> Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? >> > >> > This was proposed by Sergei Kornilov in >> > https://postgr.es/m/3368121530260...@web21g.yandex.ru saying that "it >> > would be nice" to return it. Maybe he has an use case in mind? I don't >> > see one myself. >> No, i have no specific usecase for this. Silently remove all matching rows >> and return void is ok for me. But i still think LOG ereport is not useful. > > > I would much prefer it to be a return code rather than a forced LOG message. > Log message spam is very much a thing, and things that are logged as LOG will > always be there. >
Is any such LOG message present in the latest patch? I agree that the return code might be better, but there doesn't exist any such (LOG) thing. I see that it can be helpful for some users if we have any such return code, but don't know if it doesn't already exist, why that should be a requirement for this patch? Do you have any strong opinion about introducing return code with this patch? > It could also be made to take a parameter saying log yes/no with a default > value, but that seems like possible overengineering of a fairly simple > functionality. > Right. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
