On 2/2/17 4:39 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com
<mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>> wrote:

    I think the issue here is that the original case for this is a user
    accidentally getting into an \if and then having no clue what's
    going on. That's similar to what happens when you miss a quote or a
    semicolon. We handle those cases with %R, and I think %R needs to
    support if as well.

    Perhaps there's value to providing more info (active branch, etc),
    but ISTM trying to do that will just confuse the original (%R) case.


After spending a few minutes to familiarize myself with %R, I'm in
agreement with your second statement (adding if-else to %R will just
confuse %R). However, your first statement seems to indicate the
opposite. Can you elaborate?

My point was that we need a way for users to know if they're stuck in an \if block, and right now that's handled with %R (inside transaction, parens, etc). My other point is that adding all the extra info to %R would be folly.

Since the current consensus is to be very verbose about \if, this is obviously a non-issue. Maybe worth adding a 'I' case to %R, but no big deal if that doesn't happen.
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to