| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Date: | 2024-04-01 19:54:30 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=crgW-p8EpR2QLnmRC7axFXeW-2QbKSb4jpuwoCaYqDEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> I still think that we could just declare the function strict, if we
> use the variadic-any approach. Passing a null in any position is
> indisputable caller error. However, if you're allergic to silently
> doing nothing in such a case, we could have pg_set_attribute_stats
> check each argument and throw an error. (Or warn and keep going;
> but according to the design principle I posited earlier, this'd be
> the sort of thing we don't need to tolerate.)
>
Any thoughts about going back to having a return value, a caller could then
see that the function returned NULL rather than whatever the expected value
was (example: TRUE)?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-04-01 19:58:48 | Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-04-01 19:52:31 | Re: Built-in CTYPE provider |