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
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 |