At Fri, 11 Oct 2019 23:27:54 -0500, Joe Nelson <j...@begriffs.com> wrote in > Here's v6 of the patch. > > [x] Rebase on 20961ceaf0 > [x] Don't call exit(1) after pg_fatal() > [x] Use Tom Lane's suggestion for %lld in _() string > [x] Allow full unsigned 16-bit range for ports (don't disallow ports 0-1023) > [x] Explicitly cast parsed values to smaller integers
Thank you for the new version. By the way in the upthread, At Tue, 8 Oct 2019 01:46:51 -0500, Joe Nelson <j...@begriffs.com> wrote in > > I see Michael's patch is adding this new return type, but really, is > > there a good reason why we need to do something special when the user > > does not pass in an integer? I agree to David in that it's better to avoid that kind of complexity if possible. The significant point of separating them was that you don't want to suggest a false value range for non-integer inputs. Looking the latest patch, the wrong suggestions and the complexity introduced by the %lld alternative are already gone. So I think we're reaching the simple solution where pg_strtoint64_range doesn't need to be involved in message building. "<hoge> must be an integer in the range (mm .. xx)" Doesn't the generic message work for all kinds of failure here? # It is also easy for transators than the split message case. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center