Thank you Tom! Your comment "NULL doesn't have semantics that are visibly different from an empty string" is exactly what I want to confirm :-)
On 11/2/23, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> Hmm ... if we're doing it ourselves, I suppose we've got to consider >> it supported :-(. But I'm still wondering how many seldom-used >> code paths didn't get the message. An example here is that this >> could lead to GetConfigOptionResetString returning NULL, which >> I think is outside its admittedly-vague API spec. > > After digging around for a bit, I think part of the problem is a lack > of a clearly defined spec for what should happen with NULL string GUCs. > In the attached v3, I attempted to remedy that by adding a comment in > guc_tables.h (which is maybe not the best place but I didn't see a > better one). That led me to a couple more changes beyond what you had. > > It's possible that some of these are unreachable --- for example, > given that a NULL could only be the default value, I'm not sure that > the fix in write_one_nondefault_variable is a live bug. But we ought > to code all this stuff defensively, and most of it already was > NULL-safe. > > regards, tom lane > > -- Best Regards, Xing
