From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ash M <makmarath(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name |
Date: | 2019-02-19 20:21:42 |
Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Z1Sbd1ZtAjex59PFRKFqcZmJ8sy7s_mqX0T227kZ1Fkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:04 PM David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 06:48, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)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.
Indeed. It looks all fine to me in v6, so I'm marking the patch as
ready for committer.
Thanks!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2019-02-19 20:46:19 | BUG #15643: Problem using PGAdmin 4.2 to connect to postrgres hot standby |
Previous Message | John Klann | 2019-02-19 20:21:25 | Re: BUG #15636: PostgreSQL 11.1 pg_basebackup backup to a CIFS destination throws fsync error at end of backup |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey Klychkov | 2019-02-19 20:39:54 | Re[2]: PGAdmin 4 don't refresh server info after restarting |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-02-19 20:19:46 | Re: proposal: pg_restore --convert-to-text |