Re: check_recovery_target_lsn() does a PG_CATCH without a throw

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: check_recovery_target_lsn() does a PG_CATCH without a throw
Date: 2019-06-24 21:27:26
Message-ID: 910a4421-f0bc-0e5f-8617-0d467627b30e@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-06-24 06:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - if (strcmp(*newval, "epoch") == 0 ||
> - strcmp(*newval, "infinity") == 0 ||
> - strcmp(*newval, "-infinity") == 0 ||
> Why do you remove these? They should still be rejected because they
> make no sense as recovery targets, no?

Yeah but the new code already rejects those anyway. Note how
timestamptz_in() has explicit switch cases to accept those, and we
didn't carry those over into check_recovery_time().

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2019-06-24 23:34:19 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-06-24 20:59:05 Re: more Unicode data updates