Re: [PATCH] two-arg current_setting() with fallback
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] two-arg current_setting() with fallback |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaZqxEhQ2xx7N5+LMdoKSTp3NHScFZButqd-Q5Rd8oCgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] two-arg current_setting() with fallback (David Christensen <david@endpoint.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] two-arg current_setting() with fallback
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, David Christensen <david@endpoint.com> wrote: > In that case, the other thought I had here is that we change the function signature of current_setting() to be a two-argform where the second argument is a boolean "throw_error", with a default argument of true to preserve existing semantics,and returning NULL if that argument is false. However, I'm not sure if there are some issues with changing thesignature of an existing function (e.g., with pg_upgrade, etc.). > > My *impression* is that since pg_upgrade rebuilds the system tables for a new install it shouldn't be an issue, but notsure if having the same pg_proc OID with different values or an alternate pg_proc OID would cause issues down the line;anyone know if this is a dead-end? I think if the second argument is defaulted it would be OK. However it might make sense to instead add a new two-argument function and leave the existing one-argument function alone, because setting default arguments for functions defined in pg_proc.h is kind of a chore. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: