Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
От | Florian Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0471E177-16B6-4E68-9B79-31FA29D65C9C@phlo.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan20, 2014, at 14:05 , Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote: > On 1/20/14 1:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote: >>> What's so hard about plpgsql.warnings='all'? Or if the fact that it's a >>> list is your concern, I'm not going to oppose to making it a boolean. >> >> Sure, that'd be fine. What I don't want is to have to start each function with: >> >> #option warn_this >> #option warn_that >> #option warn_theotherthing >> #option warn_somethingelse >> #option warn_yetanotherthing >> #option warn_whatdoesthisdoagain > > Right. Completely agreed. The only reason I had them in the patch is to have the > ability to turn *off* a specific warning for a particular function. But even > that's of a bit dubious a value. I think as long as there's an easy way to avoid a warning - in the case of warn_shadow e.g. by renaming the shadowing variable - there's no real requirement to be able to disable the warning on a per-function basis. And if there isn't a simple way to avoid a particular warning then we ought not warn about it anyway, I guess, because that would indicate that there are genuine reasons for doing whatever it is the warning complains about. best regards, Florian Pflug
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: