Re: pg_proc.dat "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_proc.dat "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array"
Date: 2020-11-17 19:59:22
Message-ID: 935421.1605643162@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, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Adding the expected length to the error message might be OK though.

> Certainly seems like we should do at least that much. The current
> message is just wrong, right?

It's incomplete, for sure. Doesn't mention nulls either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jack Christensen 2020-11-17 20:18:51 Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2020-11-17 19:50:20 Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback