Re: Remembering bug #6123

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123
Date: 2012-01-12 22:31:51
Message-ID: 4F0F0AF70200002500044750@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> You forgot to attach the patch, but the approach seems totally
> Rube Goldberg to me anyway. Why not just fix heap_update/
> heap_delete to return the additional information? It's not like
> we don't whack their parameter lists around regularly.
>
> Rather than having three output parameters to support the case,
> I'm a bit inclined to merge them into a single-purpose struct
> type. But that's mostly cosmetic.

OK, I got rid of the parrots and candles and added a structure to
hold the data returned only on failure.

Am I getting closer?

-Kevin

Attachment Content-Type Size
bug6123-v5.patch text/plain 20.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-01-12 22:33:08 Re: ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-12 22:22:46 ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION