2014-03-18 19:56 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com>:
>
> On 18/03/14 13:43, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> 2014-03-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com>
>
>>
>> Agree that compile_errors dos not make sense, additional_errors and
>> additional_warnings seems better, maybe plpgsql.extra_warnings and
>> plpgsql.extra_errors?
>>
>
> extra* sounds better
>
>
> Ok, so I took the liberty of rewriting the patch so that it uses
> plpgsql.extra_warnings and plpgsql.extra_errors configuration variables
> with possible values "none", "all" and "shadow" ("none" being the default).
> Updated doc and regression tests to reflect the code changes, everything
> builds and tests pass just fine.
>
I don't think so only "shadow" is good name for some check. Maybe
"shadow-variables-check"
??
>
> I did one small change (that I think was agreed anyway) from Marko's
> original patch in that warnings are only emitted during function creation,
> no runtime warnings and no warnings for inline (DO) plpgsql code either as
> I really don't think these optional warnings/errors during runtime are a
> good idea.
>
> Note that the patch does not really handle the list of values as list,
> basically "all" and "shadow" are translated to true and proper handling of
> this is left to whoever will want to implement additional checks. I think
> this approach is fine as I don't see the need to build frameworks here and
> it was same in the original patch.
>
> --
> Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
>
