On 01/08/2016 07:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> So, is this going anywhere?
> Oh, sorry, was I on the hook to review that?
> [ quick look... ]  This doesn't seem like it responds to my criticism
> above.  I think what we want is that for every LookupTypeName call site
> that could potentially be invoking this notation, we must actually make
> provision for passing a valid pstate, one containing in particular the
> source text for the nodetree we're parsing.  Without that we will not
> get error messages of the quality we expect (with error pointers).
> Another issue now that I look at it is that parser-detected semantic
> problems in the expression will result in ereport(ERROR), rather than
> returning NULL which is what you'd kind of expect from the API spec for
> LookupTypeName.  That's probably all right considering that many other
> syntactic issues throw errors inside this function; but maybe we'd better
> adjust the API spec.

Ok, back to the drawing board. Thanks for the feedback.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to