| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonpath |
| Date: | 2019-04-22 00:27:20 |
| Message-ID: | 32747.1555892840@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Just to clarify things. Do you propose to get rid of RETURN_ERROR()
> macro by expanding it at every occurrence? Or do you have other ideas
> in the mind?
I wasn't really complaining about RETURN_ERROR() --- it was the
macros rather than literal strings for the errmsg() texts that
was bothering me.
Mind you, I'm not really sure about RETURN_ERROR --- it looks
a little weird to have something that appears to be doing something
with the value of ereport(), which hasn't got a value. But I don't
have a better idea at the moment. I doubt that writing out the
underlying ereport-or-return business at each spot would be any
more readable.
(Maybe spelling it RETURN_OR_ERROR, or vice versa, would help?
Not sure.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-22 00:31:21 | Re: jsonpath |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2019-04-22 00:07:01 | Re: jsonpath |