Re: multirange constructor strictness
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: multirange constructor strictness |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdvF0=xCdaOvnbWhJuYnWWeA1dbwkNTkfJ2xcswbn9Fckw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | multirange constructor strictness (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > The multirange constructors created in makeMultirangeConstructors() are: > > multirange_constructor0 -> not strict > multirange_constructor1 -> strict > multirange_constructor2 -> not strict > > And both multirange_constructor1 and multirange_constructor2 contain > code like > > /* > * These checks should be guaranteed by our signature, but let's do them > * just in case. > */ > if (PG_ARGISNULL(0)) > ereport(ERROR, > (errcode(ERRCODE_NULL_VALUE_NOT_ALLOWED), > errmsg("multirange values cannot contain NULL members"))); > > In case of multirange_constructor2 the "should be guaranteed" comment is > not actually true right now. In case of multirange_constructor1, maybe > this should be downgraded to an elog or assert or just removed. > > Is there a reason why we can't make them all three strict or all not > strict? (Obviously, it doesn't matter for multirange_constructor0.) Is > the fact that multirange_constructor2 is variadic the issue? Maybe at > least some more comments would be helpful. Thank you for noticing. I'll take care of it today. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: