On 2019-06-13 08:55, Michael Paquier wrote: > Speaking about pg_lsn. We have introduced it to reduce the amount of > duplication when mapping an LSN to text, so I am not much a fan of > this patch which adds again a duplication. You also lose some error > context as you get the same type of error when parsing the first or > the second part of the LSN. Couldn't you refactor the whole so as an > error string is present as in GUC_check_errdetail()?
There isn't really much more detail to be had. pg_lsn_in() just reports "invalid input syntax for type pg_lsn", and with the current patch the GUC system would report something like 'invalid value for parameter "recovery_target_time"'. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
