Re: Verbosity of Function Return Type Checks

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This is not ready to go: you've lost the ability to localize most of
> the error message strings.

How can I make this available? What's your suggestion?

> Also, "char *msg" should be "const char *msg"

Done.

> if you're going to pass literal constants to it, and this gives me the
> willies even though the passed-in strings are supposedly all fixed:
> errmsg(msg),
> Use
> errmsg("%s", msg),
> to be safe.

Done.

> Actually, the entire concept of varying the main message to suit the
> context exactly, while the detail messages are *not* changing, seems
> pretty bogus...

I share your concerns but couldn't come up with a better approach. I'd
be happy to hear your suggestions.

> Another problem with it is it's likely going to fail completely on
> dropped columns (which will have atttypid = 0).

Is it ok if I'd replace

if (td1->attrs[i]->atttypid != td2->attrs[i]->atttypid)

line in validate_tupdesc_compat with

if (td1->attrs[i]->atttypid &&
td2->attrs[i]->atttypid &&
td1->attrs[i]->atttypid != td2->attrs[i]->atttypid)

expression to fix this?

Regards.