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