Re: Error-safe user functions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(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: 2022-12-27 13:36:15
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022-12-26 Mo 18:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> (Perhaps we should go further than this, and convert all these
>> functions to just be DirectInputFunctionCallSafe wrappers
>> around the corresponding input functions? That would save
>> some duplicative code, but I've not done it here.)
> I looked closer at that idea, and realized that it would do more than
> just save some code: it'd cause the to_regfoo functions to accept
> numeric OIDs, as they did not before (and are documented not to).
> It is unclear to me whether that inconsistency with the input
> functions is really desirable or not --- but I don't offhand see a
> good argument for it. If we change this though, it should probably
> happen in a separate commit. Accordingly, here's a delta patch
> doing that.

+1 for doing this. The code simplification is nice too.



Andrew Dunstan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-12-27 13:50:14 Re: [BUG] pg_upgrade test fails from older versions.
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-12-27 13:31:01 Re: Error-safe user functions