On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 7:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 7:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 7:02 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2018-Nov-20, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > 4. Single API with -1 as invalid value, treat NULL as no matching. (Only
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > with this approach is till now -1 is also a valid queryid, but setting
> > > > > -1 as queryid
> > > > > > needs to be avoided.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, can we use 0 as default value without any such caveat?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, with strict and 0 as default value can work.
> > > > If there is no problem, I can go ahead with the above changes?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand this proposal. Does this mean that passing -1
> > > as databaseid / userid would match all databases/users, and passing 0 as
> > > queryid would match all queries?
> > >
> >
> > No, for userid/databaseid also it will be 0 (aka InvalidOid).
> >
>
> Not sure if the above statement is clear, but what I wanted to say
> was "for all the three userid/databaseid/queryid, default will be 0
> (aka InvalidOid)."
>
Is the proposal clear? If so, can you please share your opinion even
if it is the same as previous, because, I think that will help us in
moving forward with this patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
