Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
От | Marko Tiikkaja |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52D66595.4060007@joh.to обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/14 11:33 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> > >> I agree, it's better to include the word "compiler" in the GUC name. But >> do we really need WARNING, ERROR and FATAL levels though? Would WARNING >> and ERROR not be enough? >> > > I am not strong in level names - and it is my subjective opinion only (as > not native speaker) > > just > > plpgsql.compile_warning=warning > > or > > plpgsql.compile_warning=error > > looks little bit obscure (or as contradiction). More - "fatal" is used by > gcc and some compilers as "stop on first error" I was talking about postgres error levels above. If we define "fatal" to mean ERROR here, I'm quite certain that will confuse people. How's: plpgsql.compiler_warning_severity = 'error' # disable, warning, error matching PG error severity levels ("disable" disables, obviously) plpgsql.compiler_warnings = 'list, of, warnings' Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: