| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ugur Yilmaz <ugurlu2001(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18793: PLpgSQL Function Returning Type of Table is not match for varchar(n) data type via Return Query |
| Date: | 2025-02-10 00:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaRY_x3XXnhpi3Q6NcUAsW9aMRAcEwRtxb8kDDjk1fKvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sunday, February 9, 2025, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You could however make a reasonable case that we should not accept
> "varchar(200)" in contexts where we're going to ignore the "(200)"
> part. That's pretty ancient too, cf this comment in gram.y:
>
> * We can catch over-specified arguments here if we want to,
> * but for now better to silently swallow typmod, etc.
> * - thomas 2000-03-22
>
> I'm not sure whether rejecting such things would make more people
> happy than it made unhappy.
Given that pg_dump already outputs the typmod-less code I’d have to suspect
that making specifying a typmod here an error would be better for our
reputation, and users, overall.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-10 03:21:59 | Re: BUG #18795: Norwegian bokmål crashes again |
| Previous Message | Ugur Yilmaz | 2025-02-10 00:21:34 | Ynt: Ynt: BUG #18793: PLpgSQL Function Returning Type of Table is not match for varchar(n) data type via Return Query |