On 3/18/14, 7:56 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Ok, so I took the liberty of rewriting the patch so that it uses
plpgsql.extra_warnings and plpgsql.extra_errors configuration variables
with possible values "none", "all" and "shadow" ("none" being the default).
Updated doc and regression tests to reflect the code changes, everything
builds and tests pass just fine.
Cool, thanks!
I did one small change (that I think was agreed anyway) from Marko's
original patch in that warnings are only emitted during function
creation, no runtime warnings and no warnings for inline (DO) plpgsql
code either as I really don't think these optional warnings/errors
during runtime are a good idea.
Not super excited, but I can live with that.
Note that the patch does not really handle the list of values as list,
basically "all" and "shadow" are translated to true and proper handling
of this is left to whoever will want to implement additional checks. I
think this approach is fine as I don't see the need to build frameworks
here and it was same in the original patch.
Yeah, I don't think rushing all that logic into 9.4 would be such a good
idea. Especially since it's not necessary at all.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
