Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Date
Msg-id 202205180810.fx2gct2x47gd@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine  (Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine  (Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>)
List pgsql-hackers
forbid_realloc is only tested in an assert.  There needs to be an "if"
test for it somewhere (suppose some extension author uses this API and
only runs it in assert-disabled environment; they'll never know they
made a mistake).  But do we really need this option?  Why do we need a
hardcoded limit in the number of options?


In allocateOptionsSpecSet there's a new error message with a typo
"grater" which should be "greater".  But I think the message is
confusingly worded.  Maybe a better wording is "the value of parameter
XXX may not be greater than YYY".

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove support for Visual Studio 2013
Next
From: "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup