On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I am passing that down to a committer for review. The patch looks
> > large, but at 95% it involves diffs in the regression tests,
> > alternative outputs taking a large role in the bloat.
> This is kind of cute, but it doesn't seem to cover very much territory,
> because it only catches errors that are found in the parse stage.
> For instance, it fails to cover Franck's original example:
> ​[...]
> Maybe it'd be all right to commit this anyway, but I'm afraid the most
> common reaction would be "why's it give me this info some of the time,
> but not when I really need it?"  I'm inclined to think that an acceptable
> patch will need to provide context for the plan-time and run-time cases
> too, and I'm not very sure where would be a sane place to plug in for
> those cases.


David J.

Reply via email to