Hi, On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 9:53 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > That said, I agree that %d would be safer if we want to make the error > handling robust against an arbitrary/invalid byte say due to catalog > corruption. As Vignesh pointed out, though, %c is currently the common > convention for printing relkind, whereas %d is used only in one place. > > So perhaps we should keep %c in this patch and, if we want to adopt %d > for unexpected relkind values, let's handle the existing %c usages > consistently in a separate patch. > > Thoughts?
I looked at the most common and widely used path, which is errdetail_relkind_not_supported(). It uses %c (some of these might be user-visible errors). I prefer to go with that, so +1 to use %c in this patch and discuss the use of %d separately if that's a concern. -- Bharath Rupireddy Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
