From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c |
Date: | 2016-07-29 16:17:43 |
Message-ID: | 15728.1469809063@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> While looking at the series of functions pg_get_*, I have noticed as
>> well that pg_get_userbyid() returns "unknown (OID=%u)" when it does
>> not know a user. Perhaps we'd want to change that to NULL for
>> consistency with the rest?
> That's probably correct in theory, but it's a little less closely
> related, and I'm not entirely sure how far we want to go with this.
> Remember, the original purpose was to avoid having an internal error
> (cache lookup failed, XX000) exposed as a user-visible error message.
> Are we at risk from veering from actual bug-fixing off into useless
> tinkering? Not sure.
I'd vote for leaving that one alone; yeah, it's a bit inconsistent
now, but no one has complained about its behavior.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-29 17:00:50 | Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-29 16:10:24 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dumping extensions having sequences with 9.6beta3 |