Re: pg_proc.dat "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array"

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_proc.dat "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array"
Date: 2020-11-23 15:06:30
Message-ID: 20201123150630.GA10860@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Nov-17, Tom Lane wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Adding the expected length to the error message might be OK though.
>
> > Certainly seems like we should do at least that much. The current
> > message is just wrong, right?
>
> It's incomplete, for sure. Doesn't mention nulls either.

So let's go with this one.

Attachment Content-Type Size
arraylen.patch text/x-diff 4.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-23 15:18:53 Re: pg_proc.dat "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array"
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2020-11-23 14:45:18 Re: [bug+patch] Inserting DEFAULT into generated columns from VALUES RTE