Em qui., 10 de fev. de 2022 às 10:57, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> escreveu:
> > On 10 Feb 2022, at 12:14, Ranier Vilela <[email protected]> wrote: > > Em qua., 9 de fev. de 2022 às 23:16, Michael Paquier < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu: > > > This patch makes things worse, doesn't it? > > No. > > > > Doesn't this localized > > change mean that we expose ourselves more into *ignoring* TOC entries > > if we mess up with this code in the future? > > InvalidOid already used for "default". > > There is no default case here, setting the tableoid to InvalidOid is done > when > the archive doesn't support this particular feature. If we can't read the > tableoid here, it's a corrupt TOC and we should abort. > Well, the v2 aborts. > > > If ReadStr fails and returns NULL, sscanf will crash. > > Yes, which is better than silently propage the error. > Ok, silently propagating the error is bad, but crashing is a signal of poor tool. > > Maybe in this case, better report to the user? > > pg_log_warning? > > That would demote what is today a crash to a warning on a corrupt TOC > entry, > which I think is the wrong way to go. Question is, can this fail in a > non-synthetic case on output which was successfully generated by pg_dump? > I'm > not saying we should ignore errors, but I have a feeling that any input fed > that triggers this will be broken enough to cause fireworks elsewhere too, > and > this being a chase towards low returns apart from complicating the code. > For me the code stays more simple and maintainable. regards, Ranier Vilela
