From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Date: | 2017-01-24 18:25:04 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=eTwrU-fA4K--9jDsfRe0OYV_qKGxXvoor3AEJVUnBWEQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> ISTM that it's important that eventually ParseVariableBool()
> and \if agree on what evaluates to true and false (and the
> more straightforward way to achieve that is by \if calling
> directly ParseVariableBool), but that it's not productive that we
> discuss /if issues relatively to the behavior of ParseVariableBool()
> in HEAD at the moment, as it's likely to change.
>
I'd like to keep in sync with ParseVariableBoolean(), but
Also, Fabien has made a good case for invalid parsed values being an
ON_ERROR_STOP-able error, and not defaulted to either true or false.
This might be asking a lot, but could we make a "strict" mode for
ParseVariableBool() that returns a success boolean, and have the existing
ParseVariableBool() signature call that new function, and issue the
"assuming " warning if the strict function failed?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tobias Oberstein | 2017-01-24 18:25:52 | Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale .. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-24 18:11:21 | Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale .. |