On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:52:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > if nothing else to avoid the ugly "NOTICE" that is
> > currently emitted in many cases describing the implicit creation of a
> > shell type.
>
> As things currently stand, you'll still get some annoying "NOTICE: foo
> is a shell type" messages from a completely-kosher creation sequence.
> Ideally we should get rid of these, but on the other hand random
> references to an incomplete shell type are probably worth warning
> about. Any thoughts about the best approach here?
Yeah, I know. Currently there is no actual way to distinguish between a
shell type created explicitly and one created inplicitly. As long as we
support the old way there's not a lot we can do about that.
My only thought was that the message could be supressed if the shell
type was created in the same transaction as you are currently running.
In that case wrapping everything in a BEGIN/END would supress all the
messages. I don't know whether this kind of behaviour is desirable
though or if it is even feasable.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.