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: | 2021-07-01 02:53:56 |
Message-ID: | b55cc84c-0bcb-e0d6-6e48-18b2a69a5677@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/06/30 23:31, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:53 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Actually, there's an existing error message errmsg("%s requires a
> non-negative numeric value" that used "numeric value". If we were to
> change errmsg("invalid numeric value for option \"%s\"", to
> errmsg("invalid value for floating point option \"%s\"",, then we
> might have to change the existing message. And also, the docs use
> "numeric value" for fdw_startup_cost and fdw_tuple_cost.
The recent commit 61d599ede7 documented that the type of those options is
floating point. But the docs still use "is a numeric value" in the descriptions
of them. Probably it should be replaced with "is a floating point value" there.
If we do this, isn't it better to use "floating point" even in the error message?
> IMO, let's go
> with errmsg("invalid value for numeric option \"%s\": %s",.
>
>> - (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?
>
> Changed.
>
> PSA v4.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-07-01 03:09:10 | Re: New committers: Daniel Gustafsson and John Naylor |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-01 01:44:02 | Re: Preventing abort() and exit() calls in libpq |