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. > Agreed. David J.
