Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values?
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, Tom Lane
<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-30T12:23:52Z
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
Commits
-
postgres_fdw: Tighten up allowed values for batch_size, fetch_size options.
- 4173477b3841 14.0 landed
- d854720df6df 15.0 landed
-
doc: Add type information for postgres_fdw parameters.
- 61d599ede742 15.0 cited