From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id A575826680 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bS9EELAdCCgU for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp14.mail.ru (smtp14.mail.ru [94.100.181.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id ECD322663D for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:38:53 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] box: rfc for stacked diagnostic area in Tarantool Message-ID: <20190827183853.GC23664@atlas> References: <7b663975f0307541a6751bde10547fc2c13b5679.1566553968.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <20190826222607.GA1189@atlas> <20190826232500.zsmwfggte2fkd4ae@tkn_work_nb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190826232500.zsmwfggte2fkd4ae@tkn_work_nb> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Alexander Turenko Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov , tarantool-patches@freelists.org, georgy@tarantool.org, Peter Gulutzan * Alexander Turenko [19/08/27 09:50]: > > as I mentioned before, lgtm. I agree with PeterG comments, but I > > think we can worry about them when we get to implementing SQL > > warnings. > > I think the important question here is when we clear a diagnostic area > (if we ever want to decide now anything about warnings). Say, we > possibly will need to entirely split warning stacks from the error stack > and possibly will need to operate on several warning stacks. > > I'm tentative that we can decide now whether we should store warnings > within the same stack as errors or not. Maybe we should postpone all > warnings questions now and concentrate on errors within the scope #1148. MySQL uses a statement counter which is incremented on every external call, and triggers a reset of the area. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia