Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8ca543af-4164-08e2-4496-2c05690886db@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values? (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/05/20 1:01, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > Thanks for the comments. I added separate messages, changed the error > code from ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR to ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE and > also quoted the option name in the error message. PSA v3 patch. Thanks for updating the patch! + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE), + errmsg("invalid numeric value for option \"%s\"", + def->defname))); In reloptions.c, when parse_real() fails to parse the input, the error message "invalid value for floating point option..." is output. For the sake of consistency, we should use the same error message here? - (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR), - errmsg("%s requires a non-negative integer value", + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE), + errmsg("invalid integer value for option \"%s\"", IMO the error message should be "invalid value for integer option..." here because of the same reason I told above. Thought? Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: