2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to>
> On 1/15/14 11:33 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> 2014/1/15 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@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"
>>
>
> 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:
>
> 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
>
