Hi,
On 2020-03-30 11:54:03 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, 01:59 Andres Freund, wrote:
> > On 2020-03-17 10:09:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > We might want to spend some effort thinking how to find or prevent
> > > additional bugs of the same ilk ...
> >
> > Yea, that'd be good
Craig Ringer writes:
> I'd have found it helpful to just have the docs explain clearly how it
> works by chaining the comma operator using functions with ignored return
> values.
Want to write some text?
> That would also help people understand how they can make parts of an
> ereport conditional
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, 01:59 Andres Freund, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-03-17 10:09:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We might want to spend some effort thinking how to find or prevent
> > additional bugs of the same ilk ...
>
> Yea, that'd be good. Trying to help people new to postgres write their
> fir
I wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> I think this caused anole to say:
>> "reloptions.c", line 1362: error #2042: operand types are incompatible
>> ("void" and "int")
>> errdetail_internal("%s", _(optenum->detailmsg)) : 0));
> Yeah, I was just looking at that :-(
> We could revert the change to ha
Thomas Munro writes:
> I think this caused anole to say:
> "reloptions.c", line 1362: error #2042: operand types are incompatible
> ("void" and "int")
> errdetail_internal("%s", _(optenum->detailmsg)) : 0));
Yeah, I was just looking at that :-(
We could revert the change to have these functio
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:30 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-03-23 17:24:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hearing no objections, I started to review Andres' patchset with
> >> that plan in mind.
>
> > Thanks for pushing the first part!
>
> I pushed all of it, actually.
I thi
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-03-23 17:24:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hearing no objections, I started to review Andres' patchset with
>> that plan in mind.
> Thanks for pushing the first part!
I pushed all of it, actually.
regards, tom lane
On 2020-03-23 17:24:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I started to review Andres' patchset with
> that plan in mind.
Thanks for pushing the first part!
Andres Freund writes:
> I wondered before whether there's a way we could move the elevel check
> in errstart to the macro. For it to be a win we'd presumably have to
> have a "synthesized" log_level variable, basically
> min(log_min_messages, client_min_messages, ERROR).
> Probably not worth it.
Hi,
On 2020-03-23 17:24:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > On balance I'm leaning towards keeping the parens as preferred style
> > for now, adjusting v12 so that the macro will allow paren omission
> > but we don't break ABI, and not touching the older branches.
>
> Hearing no objections,
I wrote:
> On balance I'm leaning towards keeping the parens as preferred style
> for now, adjusting v12 so that the macro will allow paren omission
> but we don't break ABI, and not touching the older branches.
Hearing no objections, I started to review Andres' patchset with
that plan in mind. I
On 2020-Mar-19, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the key decision we'd have to make to move forward on this
> is to decide whether it's still project style to prefer the extra
> parens, or whether we want new code to do without them going
> forward. If we don't want to risk requiring __VA_ARGS__ for the
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-03-19 22:32:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Could we get away with moving the compiler goalposts for the back
>> branches? I dunno, but it's a fact that we aren't testing anymore
>> with any compilers that would complain about unconditional use of
>> __VA_ARGS__. So
Hi,
On 2020-03-19 22:32:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I wonder if it'd become a relevant backpatch pain if we started to have
> > some ereports() without the additional parens in 13+.
>
> Yeah, it would be a nasty backpatch hazard.
>
> > Would it perhaps
> > make sense t
Andres Freund writes:
> I wonder if it'd become a relevant backpatch pain if we started to have
> some ereports() without the additional parens in 13+.
Yeah, it would be a nasty backpatch hazard.
> Would it perhaps
> make sense to backpatch just the part that removes the need for the
> parents,
Hi,
On 2020-03-19 21:03:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I think that at least some compilers will complain about side-effect-free
> > subexpressions of a comma expression. Could we restructure things so
> > that the errcode/errmsg/etc calls form a standalone comma expression
> > rather t
Hi,
On 2020-03-19 19:32:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-03-19 14:07:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Now that we can rely on having varargs macros, I think we could
> >> stop requiring the extra level of parentheses,
>
> > I think that'd be an improvement, because:
> >
I wrote:
> I think that at least some compilers will complain about side-effect-free
> subexpressions of a comma expression. Could we restructure things so
> that the errcode/errmsg/etc calls form a standalone comma expression
> rather than appearing to be arguments of a varargs function?
Yeah, t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-03-19 14:07:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that we can rely on having varargs macros, I think we could
>> stop requiring the extra level of parentheses,
> I think that'd be an improvement, because:
> ane of the ones I saw confuse people is just:
> /home/andres/sr
Hi,
On 2020-03-19 14:07:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-03-17 10:09:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We might want to spend some effort thinking how to find or prevent
> >> additional bugs of the same ilk ...
>
> > Yea, that'd be good. Trying to help people new to po
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-03-17 10:09:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might want to spend some effort thinking how to find or prevent
>> additional bugs of the same ilk ...
> Yea, that'd be good. Trying to help people new to postgres write their
> first patches I found that ereport is very
Hi,
On 2020-03-17 10:09:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We might want to spend some effort thinking how to find or prevent
> additional bugs of the same ilk ...
Yea, that'd be good. Trying to help people new to postgres write their
first patches I found that ereport is very confusing to them - large
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 13:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:28 PM Michael Paquier
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> Definitely an oversig
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:28 PM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > >> Definitely an oversight. All stable branches down to 9.5 have
> > >> mistakes in the sam
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:28 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Definitely an oversight. All stable branches down to 9.5 have
> >> mistakes in the same area, with nothing extra by grepping around.
> >> Amit, I guess that yo
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:28 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Definitely an oversight. All stable branches down to 9.5 have
>> mistakes in the same area, with nothing extra by grepping around.
>> Amit, I guess that you will take care of it?
> Yes, I will unless I see any objec
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:28 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:00 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> >> +1. This looks like an oversight to me.
> >
> > good catch! And patch LGTM.
>
> Definitely an oversight.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> +1. This looks like an oversight to me.
>
> good catch! And patch LGTM.
Definitely an oversight. All stable branches down to 9.5 have
mistakes in the same area, with nothin
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In PageIsVerified() we report a WARNING as follows:
> >
> > ereport(WARNING,
> > (ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED,
> > errmsg("page
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In PageIsVerified() we report a WARNING as follows:
>
> ereport(WARNING,
> (ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED,
> errmsg("page verification failed, calculated checksum
> %u but expected %u",
>
Hi,
In PageIsVerified() we report a WARNING as follows:
ereport(WARNING,
(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED,
errmsg("page verification failed, calculated checksum
%u but expected %u",
checksum, p->pd_checksum)));
However the error message won
31 matches
Mail list logo
