From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values? |
Date: | 2021-06-30 12:23:52 |
Message-ID: | 8ca543af-4164-08e2-4496-2c05690886db@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/05/20 1:01, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. I added separate messages, changed the error
> code from ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR to ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE and
> also quoted the option name in the error message. PSA v3 patch.
Thanks for updating the patch!
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("invalid numeric value for option \"%s\"",
+ def->defname)));
In reloptions.c, when parse_real() fails to parse the input, the error message
"invalid value for floating point option..." is output.
For the sake of consistency, we should use the same error message here?
- (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
- errmsg("%s requires a non-negative integer value",
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("invalid integer value for option \"%s\"",
IMO the error message should be "invalid value for integer option..." here
because of the same reason I told above. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-30 12:24:19 | Re: Use pg_nextpower2_* in a few more places |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-06-30 12:15:08 | Re: Allow streaming the changes after speculative aborts. |