On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 06:48, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Extensions calling those functions with old true/false values probably
> > > won't get any warning or error during compile. Is is something we
> > > should worry about or is it enough to keep the same behavior in this
> > > case?
> >
> > Yeah, I thought about that. We can avoid such problems by assigning
> > the enum values such that 0 and 1 correspond to the old behaviors.
> > I didn't look to see if the proposed patch does it like that right
> > now, but it should be an easy fix if not.
>
> It does, I was just wondering whether that was a good enough solution.
>
> Thinking more about it, I'm not sure if there's a general policy for
> enums, but should we have an AssertArg() in LookupFuncName[WithArgs]
> to check that a correct value was passed?
I think since the original argument was a bool then it's pretty
unlikely that such an assert would ever catch anything, given 0 and 1
are both valid values for this enum type.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
