Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant wrote:
> Okay, so who is submitting a new version here? Surafel, Joe?
Sure, I'll look into it over the weekend.
ht not be too clean. Maybe there's a
better place for the function.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
diff --git a/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile b/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
index 0bca2f8e9e..cb9292d0f4 100644
--- a/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
+++ b/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
@@ -6,6
rvice I can use to test my patches across multiple platforms? I'd
rather not bother reviewers with build problems that I can catch in a
more automated way.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
eck for example in [1]).
The pg_strto[u]intXX_check functions can return the integer directly only
because they handle errors with ereport(ERROR, ...). However, as I mentioned
earlier, this is not always what the front-end utilities need to do.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ... can we have a new patch? Not only because there seems to have
> been some discussion points that have gone unaddressed (?)
Yes, I'll work on it over the weekend.
> but also because Appveyor complains really badly about this one.
> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postg
a failure for ports, and
allow integer parse errors.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
diff --git a/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile b/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
index 0bca2f8e9e..cb9292d0f4 100644
--- a/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
+++ b/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ PGAPPI
Isaac Morland wrote:
> I hope you'll forgive a noob question. Why does the "After"
> initialization for the boolean array have {0} rather than {false}?
I think using a value other than {0} potentially gives the incorrect
impression that the value is used for *all* elements of the
array/structure,
> If so, I don't suppose it's possible to give empty braces:
>
> bool nulls[Natts_pg_attribute] = {};
GNU does add this capability as a nonstandard language extension, but
according to the C99 standard, no.
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > pg_standby: -k keepfiles could not parse 'hoge' as integer
>
> I didn't checked closely, but -k of pg_standby's message looks
> somewhat strange. Needs a separator?
Good point, how about this:
pg_standby: -k keepfiles:
> Building a sentense just concatenatin
Amit Kapila wrote:
> > How about I just define them both the same?
> > #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO {0}
> > #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_FALSE{0}
>
> I think using one define would be preferred, but you can wait and see
> if others prefer defining different macros for the same thing.
+1 on using
think it should be OK though, since we return the
pg_strtoint_status so callers can inspect that rather than relying on certain
words being in the error string. I'm guessing the translated string would be
most appropriate for end users.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
diff --git a/cont
ting a version of the function for int32
> and int64 and directly passing in the variable to be set.
One complication is that the destination values are often int rather
than int32, and I don't know their width in general (probably 32, maybe
16, but *possibly* 64?). The pg_strtoint64_range() function with range
argument of INT_MAX is flexible enough to handle whatever situation we
encounter. Am I overthinking this part?
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
Here's v6 of the patch.
[x] Rebase on 20961ceaf0
[x] Don't call exit(1) after pg_fatal()
[x] Use Tom Lane's suggestion for %lld in _() string
[x] Allow full unsigned 16-bit range for ports (don't disallow ports 0-1023)
[x] Explicitly cast parsed values to smaller inte
> > I don't understand why this is an issue worth deviating from the
> > standard for.
>
> Because this use and the way the standard is defined in this case is
> confusing and could lead later hackers to misunderstand what's going on
> and end up creating bugs-
The two possible misunderstandings
> Is it possible to define the macro to be {} where supported and {0}
> where needed? Something like:
If it's being put behind a macro then *stylistically* it shouldn't
matter whether {} or {0} is chosen, right? In which case {0} would
be a better choice because it's supported everywhere.
> Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> > we use atoi for user argument processing in same place which return
> > zero for both invalid input and input value zero. [...] in same
> > place where we accept zero as valued input it case a problem by
> > preceding for invalid input as input value zero. strtol whic
nto a single patch, sorry if that makes it
harder to review than the original set of five patch files...
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/jsonb.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/jsonb.c
index 69f41ab455..8dced4ef6c 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/adt/jsonb.c
+++ b/src
I see this patch has been moved to the next commitfest. What's the next
step, does it need another review?
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
Joe Nelson wrote:
> > I see this patch has been moved to the next commitfest. What's the next
> > step, does it need another review?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think you need to promote your patch better.
Thanks for taking the time to revive this thread.
Quick sales
> > I think we mark this as rejected.
Stephen Frost wrote:
> The more we reject new things, the less appealing our community ends
> up being.
For what it's worth, I'm not disheartened if my rational patch is
rejected. I can appreciate that postgres wants to avoid what might be
feature creep, espe
.postgresql.org/wiki/User-specified_ordering_with_fractions
1: https://begriffs.com/posts/2018-03-20-user-defined-order.html
2: https://github.com/begriffs/pg_rational
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/Makefile b/src/backend/utils/adt/Makefile
index 13ef
the
trick? So '1/2'::rational < 1 would cast 1 to '1/1' and compare? I have
currently included these casts: integer -> rational, float8 <->
rational. Don't have one for numeric yet.
> Regards,
Thank you for taking the time to raise those questions.
--
Joe Nelson https://begriffs.com
Joe Nelson wrote:
> where the denominator is made positive whenever possible (not possible
> when it's -INT_MAX).
(I meant INT_MIN rather than -INT_MAX.)
Another more-than-one-way-to-do-it task is converting a float to a
fraction. I translated John Kennedy's method [0] to C,
Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 11 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > This patch doesn't currently apply; it has conflicts with at least
> > 01368e5d9da7 and 7e735035f208; even in 7e735035f208^ it applies with
> > fuzz. Please post an updated version so that it can move forward.
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
