| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Date: | 2024-04-01 19:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1215956.1711999455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So what's the behavior when the user fails to supply a parameter that is
> currently NOT NULL checked (example: avg_witdth)? Is that a WARN-and-exit?
I still think that we could just declare the function strict, if we
use the variadic-any approach. Passing a null in any position is
indisputable caller error. However, if you're allergic to silently
doing nothing in such a case, we could have pg_set_attribute_stats
check each argument and throw an error. (Or warn and keep going;
but according to the design principle I posited earlier, this'd be
the sort of thing we don't need to tolerate.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-01 19:28:26 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Maiquel Grassi | 2024-04-01 19:19:58 | RE: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |