From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, ryan <ryan(at)bel(dot)bc(dot)ca>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key bugs (Re: "New" bug?? Serious - crashes backend.) |
Date: | 2000-07-11 16:03:57 |
Message-ID: | 200007111603.MAA06486@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> I like a different routine name better than a check-or-no-check
> parameter. If you invoke the no-check case then you *MUST* have a check
> for failure return --- forgetting to do this is exactly the problem.
> So I think it should be harder to get at the no-check case, and you
> should have to write something that reminds you that the routine is not
> checking for you. Thus "heap_open_noerr" (I'm not particularly wedded
> to that suffix, though, if anyone has a better idea for what to call
> it). A parameter would only be useful if the same calling code might
> reasonably do different things at different times --- but either there's
> a check following the call, or there's not.
OK.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-07-11 18:47:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key bugs (Re: "New" bug?? Serious - crashes backend.) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 16:03:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key bugs (Re: "New" bug?? Serious - crashes backend.) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 16:13:57 | Re: fmgr changes not yet ported to AIX |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 16:03:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key bugs (Re: "New" bug?? Serious - crashes backend.) |