Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRBjQi1Xo5ZKTzLGR_TOBVefC-vBRMdXL82uOWTsJqcW4w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
On 1/15/14 11:33 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: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: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"
plpgsql.compiler_warning_severity = 'error' # disable, warning, error matching PG error severity levels ("disable" disables, obviously)
I don't think it is correct - "warning" is "severity" - it is about handling of warnings. It is little bit fuzzy, and I have no good idea now :(
plpgsql.compiler_warnings = 'list, of, warnings'
is not it useless? I don't think it is generally usable. Now plpgsql compiler doesn't raise any warning and better to raise warnings only when the warning can be really important.
Regards
Pavel
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: