| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Date: | 2022-12-06 17:10:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYSeAFj9Ua0cMx5dTnOy1hxYzb4mNpmXk0UdSz02x0-LQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I originally chose InputFunctionCallContext as a more neutral name in
> > case we wanted to be able to pass some other sort of node for the
> > context in future.
> > Maybe that was a little too forward looking.
>
> I didn't like that because it seemed to convey nothing at all about
> the expected behavior.
I feel like this can go either way. If we pick a name that conveys a
specific intended behavior now, and then later we want to pass some
other sort of node for some purpose other than ignoring errors, it's
unpleasant to have a name that sounds like it can only ignore errors.
But if we never use it for anything other than ignoring errors, a
specific name is clearer.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-06 17:55:44 | Re: Add tracking of backend memory allocated to pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Melih Mutlu | 2022-12-06 16:44:46 | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |