On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > So let's go with this one.
>
> WFM.
Thanks, pushed.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> So let's go with this one.
WFM.
regards, tom lane
On 2020-Nov-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Adding the expected length to the error message might be OK though.
>
> > Certainly seems like we should do at least that much. The current
> > message is just wrong, right?
>
> It's
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Adding the expected length to the error message might be OK though.
> Certainly seems like we should do at least that much. The current
> message is just wrong, right?
It's incomplete, for sure. Doesn't mention nulls eit
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Adding the expected length to the error message might be OK though.
Certainly seems like we should do at least that much. The current
message is just wrong, right?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreS
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Perhaps we can improve these error messages like below. (Or maybe just
> keep it one message "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array of %d
> elements"?) There are about 5 places to change I think.
I doubt that it's really worth expending more code on this.
Certainly I see
On 2020-Sep-30, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Random tip for future searchers. If you've modified pg_proc.dat and initdb
> fails with "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array" - it could well actually
> be that the length of proargmodes does not match the length of
> proallargtypes given the test
Hi all
Random tip for future searchers. If you've modified pg_proc.dat and initdb
fails with "proargmodes is not a 1-D char array" - it could well actually
be that the length of proargmodes does not match the length of
proallargtypes given the test
ARR_DIMS(arr)[0] != num
