Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:10:08 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Message-ID: <202205180810.fx2gct2x47gd@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3242859.cHiyl0VpJ2@thinkpad-pgpro>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202205180810.fx2gct2x47gd%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

forbid_realloc is only tested in an assert.  There needs to be an "if"
test for it somewhere (suppose some extension author uses this API and
only runs it in assert-disabled environment; they'll never know they
made a mistake).  But do we really need this option?  Why do we need a
hardcoded limit in the number of options?


In allocateOptionsSpecSet there's a new error message with a typo
"grater" which should be "greater".  But I think the message is
confusingly worded.  Maybe a better wording is "the value of parameter
XXX may not be greater than YYY".

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/