Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
Date: 2017-01-24 18:25:04
Message-ID: CADkLM=eTwrU-fA4K--9jDsfRe0OYV_qKGxXvoor3AEJVUnBWEQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> ISTM that it's important that eventually ParseVariableBool()
> and \if agree on what evaluates to true and false (and the
> more straightforward way to achieve that is by \if calling
> directly ParseVariableBool), but that it's not productive that we
> discuss /if issues relatively to the behavior of ParseVariableBool()
> in HEAD at the moment, as it's likely to change.
>

I'd like to keep in sync with ParseVariableBoolean(), but

Also, Fabien has made a good case for invalid parsed values being an
ON_ERROR_STOP-able error, and not defaulted to either true or false.

This might be asking a lot, but could we make a "strict" mode for
ParseVariableBool() that returns a success boolean, and have the existing
ParseVariableBool() signature call that new function, and issue the
"assuming " warning if the strict function failed?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tobias Oberstein 2017-01-24 18:25:52 Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-01-24 18:11:21 Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..