On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 at 05:24, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> I also think that if it is specified as CREATE FUNCTION ... STRICT
> STRICT, CREATE FUNCTION ... CALLED ON NULL INPUT RETURNS NULL ON NULL
> INPUT etc. isn't the syntaxer catching that error while parsing the
> SQL text, similar to CREATE
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 12:17, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. The v5 patch LGTM.
>
> OK, I'll push that in a while.
>
Pushed, with some additional tidying up.
In particular, I decided it was neater to follow the style of the code
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. The v5 patch LGTM.
>
> OK, I'll push that in a while.
Thanks.
> There are a few cases where def->defname isn't necessarily the name
> that was specified by the user (
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Thanks. The v5 patch LGTM.
OK, I'll push that in a while.
> Comment on errorConflictingDefElem:
> I think that the message in errorConflictingDefElem should say
> <>. I'm not sure why it
> wasn't done. Almost, all the cases where errorCo
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:32 PM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 06:40, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Duplicate option check for "FROM" option is unnecessary and will be
> > a dead code. Because the syntaxer anyways would catch if FROM is
> > specified more than once, someth
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 06:40, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> 1) Duplicate option check for "FROM" option is unnecessary and will be
> a dead code. Because the syntaxer anyways would catch if FROM is
> specified more than once, something like CREATE COLLATION mycoll1 FROM
> FROM "C";.
Hmm, it is pos
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Having pushed [1], I started looking at this, and I think it's mostly
> in good shape.
Thanks a lot for taking a look at this.
> Since we're improving the CREATE COLLATION errors, I think it's also
> worth splitting out the error for LOCALE +
On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 15:10, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 9:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. PSA v3 patch.
>
> Thanks for the updated patch, the changes look good to me.
>
Hi,
Having pushed [1], I started looking at this, and I think it's mostly
in good shape.
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 9:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 9:08 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > One minor comment:
> > You can remove the brackets around errcode, You could change:
> > + if (localeEl)
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > + (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > + errmsg("optio
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 9:08 PM vignesh C wrote:
> One minor comment:
> You can remove the brackets around errcode, You could change:
> + if (localeEl)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> + errmsg("option \"%s\" specified more than once", defel->defname),
> + parser_errpositio
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:18 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > +1 for fixing this issue, we have handled this error in other places.
> > The patch does not apply on head, could you rebase the patch on head
> > and post a new patch.
>
> Thanks. I
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:18 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > +1 for fixing this issue, we have handled this error in other places.
> > > The patch does not apply on head, could you r
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:18 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > +1 for fixing this issue, we have handled this error in other places.
> > The patch does not apply on head, could you rebase the patch on head
> > and post a new patch.
>
> Thanks. I
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 7:18 PM vignesh C wrote:
> +1 for fixing this issue, we have handled this error in other places.
> The patch does not apply on head, could you rebase the patch on head
> and post a new patch.
Thanks. I thought of rebasing once the other patch (which reorganizes
"...specifi
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing [1], I found that the CREATE COLLATION doesn't throw an error
> if duplicate options are specified, see [2] for testing a few cases on HEAD.
> This may end up accepting some of the weird cases, see [2]. It's aga
Hi,
While reviewing [1], I found that the CREATE COLLATION doesn't throw an
error if duplicate options are specified, see [2] for testing a few cases
on HEAD. This may end up accepting some of the weird cases, see [2]. It's
against other option checking code in the server where the duplicate optio
16 matches
Mail list logo
