Re: Improving display of octal GUCs

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What do you think of Rui's suggestion for a HINT if we're throwing
> out-of-range for an octal GUC? I think it's a little more complicated
> than he paints it, because the syntax rules are different in
> postgresql.conf than in SQL, but we could make it happen if we thought
> it was worth the trouble.

Having looked at what the hint would actually have to say, I'd drop it.

The hint I sketched ("quote it, e.g. '0640'") is only right for SQL.
Each way a value can arrive has its own rule:

postgresql.conf: 0640 is octal (parse_int() uses strtol with base 0),
640 fails with the 01200 message, and 0o640 is a
syntax error in the file
ALTER SYSTEM: 0640 is decimal 640 and fails with 01200;
'0640' and 0o640 are octal
postgres -c: 0640 is octal, 640 fails with 01200, and 0o640 is
rejected as an invalid value

And the error site cannot tell these apart: ALTER SYSTEM validates
through parse_and_validate_value() with PGC_S_FILE, the same source as
the file, and by then the value is the string "640" either way. A hint
that is correct everywhere would have to state both rules ("start with
a 0; in SQL also quote it or write 0o640"), which is longer than the
clue the octal echo already gives. I agree with Andrey that 01200 next
to (0000 .. 0777) is enough.

v1 still applies and builds cleanly on today's master (798bdcae89).
LGTM as is.

Regards,
Rui