Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?
Date
Msg-id 01ce7089-75b3-aec5-64db-17f99d04cb5e@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 2021/07/01 13:16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:23 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> The recent commit 61d599ede7 documented that the type of those options is
>> floating point. But the docs still use "is a numeric value" in the descriptions
>> of them. Probably it should be replaced with "is a floating point value" there.
>> If we do this, isn't it better to use "floating point" even in the error message?
> 
> Agreed. PSA v5 patch.

Thanks for updating the patch! LGTM.
Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.

One question is; should we back-patch this? This is not a bug fix,
so I'm not sure if it's worth back-patching that to already-released versions.
But it may be better to do that to v14.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: Numeric multiplication overflow errors
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?