Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 782054B4-05DC-4251-AC63-62AA898C8927@justatheory.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function (Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: Add parse_type Function
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 24, 2024, at 19:11, Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de> wrote: >> What’s the protocol for marking a patch ready for committer? > > I guess after the review of the last assigned reviewer Oh, I didn’t realize someone was assigned. :-) > 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" Yeah, there was quite a bit of discussion of this issue back in September[1]. > This behaviour is mentioned in the documentation, so I'd say it is ok. This is my attempt to make it clearer that it can return an error, but I don’t love the wording TBH. > I would personally prefer either NULL or an error in both cases, but I > can totally live with the current design. SAME. Best, David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/09F9CAD6-5096-43CC-B6A7-685703E4714D@justatheory.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: