| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value |
| Date: | 2019-05-14 23:26:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20190514232618.t4vxqgpnoutghiz7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-15 08:20:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Might be worth having a common rule for such options, so we don't
> > duplicate the knowledge between different places.
> >
> > CCing Robert and Sawada-san, who committed / authored that code.
>
> Hmn. I think that Robert's commit is right to rely on defGetBoolean()
> for option parsing. That's what we use for anything from CREATE
> EXTENSION to CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, etc.
That seems like a separate angle? What does that have to do with
accepting 0/1 in the grammar? I mean, EXPLAIN also uses defGetBoolean(),
while accepting NumericOnly for the option values?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-14 23:29:44 | Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-14 23:20:33 | Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value |