Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address
Date: 2011-06-27 18:59:37
Message-ID: 20110627185937.GD17537@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I agree with you. ?If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
> > having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
> > complicate the simple case, but since there's no forseeable need to
> > add anything other than missing_ok, my gut is to just add it and call
> > it good.
>
> On further review, my gut is having second thoughts. This patch is an
> awful lot smaller and easier to verify correctness if I just mess with
> the "try" calls and not the regular ones; and it avoids both
> back-patching hazards for us and hoops for third-party loadable
> modules that are using the non-try versions of those functions to jump
> through.

+1. (Note that the function header comments need a few more updates.)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Nolan 2011-06-27 19:12:48 Re: generate_series() Interpretation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-27 18:50:45 Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system