From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: another plperl bug |
Date: | 2004-11-23 16:37:22 |
Message-ID: | 27467.1101227842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> How far do you want to go with checking return types? Some of the
> following test cases are approaching "garbage in, garbage out"
> territory and I don't know how much effort you want to put into
> protecting programmers from themselves. Some of the cases already
> raise errors; for consistency I'm inclined to think they all should.
I think all these cases are actually OK as-is.
> CREATE FUNCTION test1() RETURNS TEXT AS $$
> return ["test"];
> $$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> SELECT test1();
> test1
> ------------------
> ARRAY(0x8427a58)
> (1 row)
This is exactly what Perl will do if you try to coerce an array to a
scalar:
$ perl -e 'print ["test 1"], "\n"'
ARRAY(0xa03ec28)
$
so I don't think a Perl programmer would find it surprising; if anything
he'd probably complain if we *didn't* do that.
I would add these test cases to the regression test were it not that the
addresses are machine-dependent...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-11-23 16:48:21 | Re: Beta5 now Available |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-11-23 16:37:09 | Re: Beta5 now Available |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2004-11-23 16:58:01 | pg_dumplo schema support |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-11-23 16:28:26 | Re: htmlhelp generation |