Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1084.1485886511@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless) (Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> The ParseVariableBool function has been updated, and the new version is >> much cleaner, including all fixes that I suggested in your copy, so you can >> use it in your patch. > I see there's still a lot of activity in the thread, I can't tell if it's > directly related to ParseVariableBool() or in the way it is called. Should > I wait for the dust to settle over there? I think ParseVariableBool is only likely to change to reject a NULL value rather than silently interpreting it as FALSE, which is the way it is in HEAD right now. That behavior is a leftover hack, really, and moving the treatment of unset values upstream seems a lot cleaner. See my draft patch at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30629.1485881533@sss.pgh.pa.us regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: