(2010/06/08 11:28), Stephen Frost wrote: > For the sake of clarity.. > > * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: >> OK, it was too implementation-specific. > > No, that wasn't the problem. There isn't an actual implementation yet > for it to be too-specific on. The problem is that proposing a change to > the catalog without figuring out what it'd actually be used for in an > overall solution is a waste of time. > Indeed,
>> Please return to the categorization with 3-level that I mentioned at >> the previous message. > > As Robert said, we're off in the weeds here. I'm not convinced that > we've got 3 levels, for starters. It could well be fewer, or more. > Let's stop making assumptions about what's OK and what's not OK. > Indeed, we may find out the 4th category in the future. >> For built-in functions, the code should be reviewed to ensure it does not >> expose the given argument using error messages. >> Then, we can mark it as trusted. > > One thing that I think *is* clear- removing useful information from > error messages is *not* going to be an acceptable "solution". > Even if it is conditional, like as Greg Stark suggested? Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
