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. Jim, 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers