Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value
Date: 2019-05-14 23:20:33
Message-ID: 20190514232033.GB1440@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Might be worth having a common rule for such options, so we don't
> duplicate the knowledge between different places.
>
> CCing Robert and Sawada-san, who committed / authored that code.

Hmn. I think that Robert's commit is right to rely on defGetBoolean()
for option parsing. That's what we use for anything from CREATE
EXTENSION to CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, etc.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-14 23:26:18 Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-05-14 22:51:20 Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options