| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 16:07:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3676101.1670342821@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2022-12-06 Tu 09:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is any *better* than Safe ... it's longer, less
>> mellifluous, and still subject to misinterpretation. But it's
>> a possible alternative.
> Yeah, I don't think there's terribly much to choose between 'safe' and
> 'noerror' in terms of meaning.
Yeah, I just wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone thought
it was a better idea.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melih Mutlu | 2022-12-06 16:44:46 | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |
| Previous Message | gkokolatos | 2022-12-06 15:52:01 | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |