Re: Bogus error handling in pg_upgrade

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bogus error handling in pg_upgrade
Date: 2014-01-02 02:37:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ906vzALT4KvSeGvO8dJchqt5bp+4LpObeUB3KWwyz+A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> check_ok() is particularly badly named, since it contains not one iota
> of error checking. misleadingly_claim_ok() would be a better name.

That's pretty hilarious, actually. I think it probably started as a
copy of initdb.c's check_ok(), and then at some point along the line
it got its heart ripped out.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-01-02 03:08:48 Re: Planning time in explain/explain analyze
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-01-02 02:33:54 Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze