Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Date: 2022-05-18 08:10:08
Message-ID: 202205180810.fx2gct2x47gd@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

forbid_realloc is only tested in an assert. There needs to be an "if"
test for it somewhere (suppose some extension author uses this API and
only runs it in assert-disabled environment; they'll never know they
made a mistake). But do we really need this option? Why do we need a
hardcoded limit in the number of options?

In allocateOptionsSpecSet there's a new error message with a typo
"grater" which should be "greater". But I think the message is
confusingly worded. Maybe a better wording is "the value of parameter
XXX may not be greater than YYY".

Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland —

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 2022-05-18 08:10:42 RE: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup
Previous Message Juan José Santamaría Flecha 2022-05-18 08:06:50 Re: Remove support for Visual Studio 2013