From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Refactor "mutually exclusive options" error reporting code in parse_subscription_options |
Date: | 2021-07-07 00:03:43 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PtT0--Tf=K_YOmoyB3RtakUOYKeCs76aaOqO2Y+Jt38kQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 6:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 8:35 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The latest patch sent by Bharath looks good to me. Would you like to
> > > > commit it or shall I take care of it?
> > >
> > > Please, go ahead.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, I'll push it early next week (by Tuesday) unless there are more
> > comments or suggestions. Thanks!
> >
>
> Pushed!
Yesterday, I needed to refactor a lot of code due to this push [1].
The refactoring exercise caused me to study these v11 changes much more deeply.
IMO there are a few improvements that should be made:
//////
1. Zap 'opts' up-front
+ *
+ * Caller is expected to have cleared 'opts'.
This comment is putting the onus on the caller to "do the right thing".
I think that hopeful expectations about input should be removed - the
function should just be responsible itself just to zap the SubOpts
up-front. It makes the code more readable, and it removes any
potential risk of garbage unintentionally passed in that struct.
/* Start out with cleared opts. */
memset(opts, 0, sizeof(SubOpts));
Alternatively, at least there should be an assertion for some sanity check.
Assert(opt->specified_opts == 0);
----
2. Remove redundant conditions
/* Check for incompatible options from the user. */
- if (enabled && *enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "enabled = true")));
- if (create_slot && create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "create_slot = true")));
- if (copy_data && copy_data_given && *copy_data)
+ if (opts->copy_data &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_COPY_DATA) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_COPY_DATA))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "copy_data = true")));
By definition, this function only allows any option to be
"specified_opts" if that option is also "supported_opts". So, there is
really no need in the above code to re-check again that it is
supported.
It can be simplified like this:
/* Check for incompatible options from the user. */
- if (enabled && *enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "enabled = true")));
- if (create_slot && create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "create_slot = true")));
- if (copy_data && copy_data_given && *copy_data)
+ if (opts->copy_data &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_COPY_DATA))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"connect = false", "copy_data = true")));
-----
3. Remove redundant conditions
Same as 2. Here are more examples of conditions where the redundant
checking of "supported_opts" can be removed.
/*
* Do additional checking for disallowed combination when slot_name = NONE
* was used.
*/
- if (slot_name && *slot_name_given && !*slot_name)
+ if (!opts->slot_name &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_SLOT_NAME) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_SLOT_NAME))
{
- if (enabled && *enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"slot_name = NONE", "enabled = true")));
- if (create_slot && create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT) &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ /*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"slot_name = NONE", "create_slot = true")));
It can be simplified like this:
/*
* Do additional checking for disallowed combination when slot_name = NONE
* was used.
*/
- if (slot_name && *slot_name_given && !*slot_name)
+ if (!opts->slot_name &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_SLOT_NAME))
{
- if (enabled && *enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"slot_name = NONE", "enabled = true")));
- if (create_slot && create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot &&
+ IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ /*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
"slot_name = NONE", "create_slot = true")));
------
4. Remove redundant conditions
- if (enabled && !*enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED) &&
+ !IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_ENABLED))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("subscription with %s must also set %s",
"slot_name = NONE", "enabled = false")));
- if (create_slot && !create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot &&
+ IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT) &&
+ !IsSet(opts->specified_opts, SUBOPT_CREATE_SLOT))
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ /*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("subscription with %s must also set %s",
"slot_name = NONE", "create_slot = false")));
This code can be simplified even more than the others mentioned,
because here the "specified_opts" checks were already done in the code
that precedes this.
It can be simplified like this:
- if (enabled && !*enabled_given && *enabled)
+ if (opts->enabled)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
/*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("subscription with %s must also set %s",
"slot_name = NONE", "enabled = false")));
- if (create_slot && !create_slot_given && *create_slot)
+ if (opts->create_slot)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ /*- translator: both %s are strings of the form "option = value" */
errmsg("subscription with %s must also set %s",
"slot_name = NONE", "create_slot = false")));
//////
PSA my patch which includes all the fixes mentioned above.
(Make check, and TAP subscription tests are tested and pass OK)
------
[1] https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/8aafb02616753f5c6c90bbc567636b73c0cbb9d4
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v11-0001-PS-Fix-v11.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-07-07 00:36:13 | Re: visibility map corruption |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-06 23:42:51 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |