Re: Removing another gen_node_support.pl special case

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Removing another gen_node_support.pl special case
Date: 2022-12-02 20:25:00
Message-ID: 2128644.1670012700@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 29.11.22 22:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Concretely, it seems like something like the attached could be
>> useful, independently of the other change.

> Yes, right now you can easily declare things that don't make sense.
> Cross-checks like these look useful.

Checking my notes from awhile back, there was one other cross-check
that I thought was pretty high-priority: verifying that array_size
fields precede their array fields. Without that, a read function
will fail entirely, and a compare function might index off the
end of an array depending on which array-size field it chooses
to believe. It seems like an easy mistake to make, too.

I added that and pushed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ankit Kumar Pandey 2022-12-02 20:33:16 Re: Questions regarding distinct operation implementation
Previous Message Ankit Kumar Pandey 2022-12-02 20:10:01 Re: Questions regarding distinct operation implementation