Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOBaU_bzP+8nmSaidDtkVBji8hxuXKwGHxjJ7yPRCYD4r-Sovw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop functionoperation" on DB with functions having same name
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
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?
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: