| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Date: | 2024-04-01 21:09:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1321788.1712005745@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Any thoughts about going back to having a return value, a caller could then
> see that the function returned NULL rather than whatever the expected value
> was (example: TRUE)?
If we are envisioning that the function might emit multiple warnings
per call, a useful definition could be to return the number of
warnings (so zero is good, not-zero is bad). But I'm not sure that's
really better than a boolean result. pg_dump/pg_restore won't notice
anyway, but perhaps other programs using these functions would care.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ants Aasma | 2024-04-01 21:11:59 | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-01 21:03:28 | Re: Security lessons from liblzma |