From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | multirange constructor strictness |
Date: | 2021-04-21 20:56:54 |
Message-ID: | 0f783a96-8d67-9e71-996b-f34a7352eeef@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The multirange constructors created in makeMultirangeConstructors() are:
multirange_constructor0 -> not strict
multirange_constructor1 -> strict
multirange_constructor2 -> not strict
And both multirange_constructor1 and multirange_constructor2 contain
code like
/*
* These checks should be guaranteed by our signature, but let's do them
* just in case.
*/
if (PG_ARGISNULL(0))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NULL_VALUE_NOT_ALLOWED),
errmsg("multirange values cannot contain NULL members")));
In case of multirange_constructor2 the "should be guaranteed" comment is
not actually true right now. In case of multirange_constructor1, maybe
this should be downgraded to an elog or assert or just removed.
Is there a reason why we can't make them all three strict or all not
strict? (Obviously, it doesn't matter for multirange_constructor0.) Is
the fact that multirange_constructor2 is variadic the issue? Maybe at
least some more comments would be helpful.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-21 20:58:40 | Re: when the startup process doesn't |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-21 20:55:28 | Re: when the startup process doesn't |