Hello all 2012/11/27 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com>: > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 15:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> It would be useful if we issued a NOTICE when an ambiguity is >> introduced, rather than when using it. >> >> Like Bison's reporting of reduce conflicts. > > This brings up a very important point, which is that a lot of the code > is frozen in applications yet invisible at DDL time. So we have to be > careful that DDL changes have a reasonable impact on the ability to > continue to compile and execute the previously-working SQL received from > the applications. > > In other words, as I said in another reply, we want to avoid cases where > something seemingly innocuous (like creating a function) causes > previously-working SQL to fail due to ambiguity. > > As Tom said, detecting the ambiguity at DDL time is not easy, so I'm not > suggesting that. And I know that creating a function can already cause > previously-working SQL to fail. I'm just saying we should be careful of > these situations and not make them more likely than necessary. >
from my view - a current design works well, but for someone who see pg first time, there can be lot of surprises. a) PostgreSQL reports missing functions -- but there are issue in parameters b) PostgreSQL requests explicit typing string literals to text -- and again it reports not informative message so minimally we can enhance a error messages Regards Pavel > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
