2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> > On 1/15/14 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> >> >>> Hmm. How about: >>> >>> plpgsql.warnings = 'all' # enable all warnings, defauls to the empty >>> list, i.e. no warnings >>> plpgsql.warnings = 'shadow, unused' # enable just "shadow" and >>> "unused" >>> warnings >>> plpgsql.warnings_as_errors = on # defaults to off? >>> >>> This interface is a lot more flexible and should address Jim's concerns >>> as >>> well. >>> >>> >> In this context is not clean if this option is related to plpgsql compile >> warnings, plpgsql executor warnings or general warnings. >> >> plpgsql.compile_warnings = "disabled", "enabled", "fatal" >> > > 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" Regards Pavel > > > > Regards, > Marko Tiikkaja >
