From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 06:15:29 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1701240707070.31421@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> 1: unrecognized value "whatever" for "\if"; assuming "on"
>>
>> I do not think that the script should continue with such an assumption.
>
> I agree, and this means we can't use ParseVariableBool() as-is. I
> already broke out argument reading to it's own function, knowing that
> it'd be the stub for expressions. So I guess we start that now. What
> subset of true-ish values do you think we should support? If we think
> that real expressions are possible soon, we could only allow 'true' and
> 'false' for now, but if we expect that expressions might not make it
> into v10, then perhaps we should support the same text values that
> coerce to booleans on the server side.
Hmmm. I would text value that coerce to true? I would also accept non-zero
integers (eg SELECT 1::BOOL; -- t).
I would suggest to assume false on everything else, and/or maybe to ignore
the whole if/endif section in such cases.
> All valid issues. Will add those to the regression as well (with
> ON_ERROR_STOP disabled, obviously).
ISTM that with TAP test you can check for error returns, so maybe this can
be done.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-01-24 06:18:30 | Re: pageinspect: Hash index support |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-24 06:11:58 | Re: contrib modules and relkind check |