Hello Marko,
I've changed the loop slightly. Do you find this more readable than the way
the loop was previously written?
It is 50% better:-)
It is no big deal, but I still fail to find the remaining continue as
usefull in this case. If you remove the continue line and invert the
On 09/02/2014 11:52 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I've changed the loop slightly. Do you find this more readable than the way
the loop was previously written?
It is 50% better:-)
It is no big deal, but I still fail to find the remaining continue as
usefull in this case. If you remove the
Hi,
On 2014-09-02 15:04, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think this patch has been thoroughly reviewed now. Committed, thanks!
Thank you, Heikki. And also big thanks to Fabien for the review!
.marko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On 2014-08-12 13:23, I wrote:
The compile-time raise parameter checking is a good move.
3 minor points:
- I would suggest to avoid continue within a loop so that the code is
simpler to understand, at least for me.
I personally find the code easier to read with the continue.
I've changed
Hello Marko,
Here's a patch for making PL/PgSQL throw an error during compilation (instead
of runtime) if the number of parameters passed to RAISE don't match the
number of placeholders in error message. I'm sure people can see the pros of
doing it this way.
Patch scanned, applied tested
Hi Fabien,
On 8/12/14 1:09 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Here's a patch for making PL/PgSQL throw an error during compilation (instead
of runtime) if the number of parameters passed to RAISE don't match the
number of placeholders in error message. I'm sure people can see the pros of
doing it this
Hello,
- I would suggest to avoid continue within a loop so that the code is
simpler to understand, at least for me.
I personally find the code easier to read with the continue.
Hmmm. I had to read the code to check it, and I did it twice. The point is
that there is 3 exit points instead
2014-08-12 15:09 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
Hello,
- I would suggest to avoid continue within a loop so that the code is
simpler to understand, at least for me.
I personally find the code easier to read with the continue.
Hmmm. I had to read the code to check it,
one note: this patch can enforce a compatibility issues - a partially
broken functions, where some badly written RAISE statements was executed
newer.
I am not against this patch, but it should be in extra check probably ??
I'm not sure about what you mean by it should be in extra check.
2014-08-12 19:14 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
one note: this patch can enforce a compatibility issues - a partially
broken functions, where some badly written RAISE statements was executed
newer.
I am not against this patch, but it should be in extra check probably ??
Me again,
Here's a patch for making PL/PgSQL throw an error during compilation
(instead of runtime) if the number of parameters passed to RAISE don't
match the number of placeholders in error message. I'm sure people can
see the pros of doing it this way.
.marko
***
Hi
2014-07-26 20:39 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
Me again,
Here's a patch for making PL/PgSQL throw an error during compilation
(instead of runtime) if the number of parameters passed to RAISE don't
match the number of placeholders in error message. I'm sure people can see
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
