| 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 21:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=fpbw6EC3hW4N-RxwxMcNBH8F+M6atyiOapL-PkgfWZCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> If we are envisioning that the function might emit multiple warnings
> per call, a useful definition could be to return the number of
> warnings (so zero is good, not-zero is bad). But I'm not sure that's
> really better than a boolean result. pg_dump/pg_restore won't notice
> anyway, but perhaps other programs using these functions would care.
>
A boolean is what we had before, I'm quite comfortable with that, and it
addresses my silent-failure concerns.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2024-04-01 21:29:28 | Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2024-04-01 21:11:59 | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |