Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5405C05E.9040907@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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 "continue" line and invert the > condition, it works exactly the same, so it is just one useless > instruction within that loop. From a logical point of view the loop is > looking for '%' and then check whether the next char is '%' or not, so the > straightforward code helps my understanding as it does exactly that, and > the continue is just an hindrance to comprehension. > > Note that I would buy it if it helped avoid indenting further a > significant portion of complex code, but this is not the case here. FWIW, I agree. >> [doc] I've incorporated these changes into this version of the patch, >> with small changes. > > Ok. > >> With elog(ERROR, ..) it's still reported, but the user isn't fooled into >> thinking that the error is to be expected, and hopefully we would see a bug >> report. If it's impossible to tell the two errors apart, we might have >> subtly broken code carried around for who knows how long. > > Ok. > > In that case, it would make sense to keep distinct wordings of both > exceptions in the execution code, so that they also can be set apart, > i.e. keep the "too many/few" somewhere in the error? Well, you can do "set log_error_verbosity='verbose'" if you run into that. I think this patch has been thoroughly reviewed now. Committed, thanks! - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: