Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function
От | Jim Jones |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39614e00-9f0e-4b17-9a85-9b3078daa11e@uni-muenster.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function ("David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.02.24 14:46, David E. Wheeler wrote: > What’s the protocol for marking a patch ready for committer? I guess after the review of the last assigned reviewer v9 applies cleanly, all tests pass and documentation builds correctly. Just a very small observation: The fact that a completely invalid type returns NULL .. SELECT to_regtypemod('foo'); to_regtypemod --------------- (1 row) .. but a "partially" valid one returns an error might be confusing postgres=# SELECT to_regtypemod('timestamp(-4)'); ERROR: syntax error at or near "-" LINE 1: SELECT to_regtypemod('timestamp(-4)'); ^ CONTEXT: invalid type name "timestamp(-4)" postgres=# SELECT to_regtypemod('text(-4)'); ERROR: type modifier is not allowed for type "text" This behaviour is mentioned in the documentation, so I'd say it is ok. + <xref linkend="datatype-oid"/>). Failure to extract a valid potential + type name results in an error; however, if the extracted name is not + known to the system, this function will return <literal>NULL</literal>. I would personally prefer either NULL or an error in both cases, but I can totally live with the current design. OTOH, format_type returns "???" and it seems to be fine, so don't take this comment too seriously :) SELECT format_type(-1,-1); format_type ------------- ??? (1 row) Other than that, LGTM. Thanks David! Best, Jim -- Jim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: