On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 02:07:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: >> I don't entirely buy off on the argument that it's code that's 'highly >> unlikely to break once written' though- we do add new relkinds from time >> to time, for example. Perhaps we could have these functions run just >> once per relkind. > > Well, the relevant code is likely to be "if relkind is not x, y, or z, > then PG_RETURN_NULL". If we add a new relkind and forget to consider the > function, the outcome is a NULL result that perhaps should not have been > NULL ... but a test like this won't help us notice that.
Yes, in order to prevent problems with newly-introduced relkinds, I think that the checks within functions should be careful to check only for relkinds that they support, and not list those they do not support. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
