Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f9wOa1CdgFm27NusPZODnL9SkJzxyNuq88VywPj9gS3vg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 06:48, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > Extensions calling those functions with old true/false values probably > > > won't get any warning or error during compile. Is is something we > > > should worry about or is it enough to keep the same behavior in this > > > case? > > > > Yeah, I thought about that. We can avoid such problems by assigning > > the enum values such that 0 and 1 correspond to the old behaviors. > > I didn't look to see if the proposed patch does it like that right > > now, but it should be an easy fix if not. > > It does, I was just wondering whether that was a good enough solution. > > Thinking more about it, I'm not sure if there's a general policy for > enums, but should we have an AssertArg() in LookupFuncName[WithArgs] > to check that a correct value was passed? I think since the original argument was a bool then it's pretty unlikely that such an assert would ever catch anything, given 0 and 1 are both valid values for this enum type. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: