Re: Broken error detection in genbki.pl
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Broken error detection in genbki.pl |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 568b9070-7c43-8067-a7f5-7c826eca1827@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Broken error detection in genbki.pl (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-03-20 We 12:44, Tom Lane wrote: > David Wheeler complained over in [1] that genbki.pl fails to produce a > useful error message if there's anything wrong in a catalog data file. > He's right about that, but the band-aid patch he proposed doesn't > improve the situation much. The actual problem is that key error > messages in genbki.pl expect $bki_values->{line_number} to be set, > which it is not because we're invoking Catalog::ParseData with > $preserve_formatting = 0, and that runs a fast path that doesn't do > line-by-line processing and hence doesn't/can't fill that field. > > I'm quite sure that those error cases worked as-intended when first > coded. I did not check the git history, but I suppose that somebody > added the non-preserve_formatting fast path later without any > consideration for the damage it was doing to error reporting ability. > I'm of the opinion that this change was penny-wise and pound-foolish. > On my machine, the time to re-make the bki files with the fast path > enabled is 0.597s, and with it disabled (measured with the attached > quick-hack patch) it's 0.612s. Is that savings worth future hackers > having to guess what they broke and where in a large .dat file? > > As you can see from the quick-hack patch, it's kind of a mess to use > the $preserve_formatting = 1 case, because there are a lot of loops > that have to be taught to ignore comment lines, which we don't really > care about except in reformat_dat_file.pl. What I suggest doing, but > have not yet coded up, is to nuke the fast path in Catalog::ParseData > and reinterpret the $preserve_formatting argument as controlling > whether comments and whitespace are entered in the output data > structure, but not whether we parse it line-by-line. That should fix > this problem with zero change in the callers, and also buy back a > little bit of the cost compared to this quick hack. > > Thoughts? > > regards, tom lane > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/60EF4E11-BC1C-4034-B37B-695662D28AD2%40justatheory.com > Makes sense cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: