Re: Error-safe user functions

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Why not do away with two separate functions and define a composite type
>>> (boolean, text) for is_valid to return?

>> I don't see any advantage to that. It would be harder to use in both
>> use-cases.

> I don't really see a use case for either of them individually.

Uh, several people opined that pg_input_is_valid would be of field
interest. If I thought these were only for testing purposes I wouldn't
be especially concerned about documenting them at all.

> Are you suggesting we should not go down the path that v8-0003 does in the
> monitoring section cleanup thread? I find the usability of Chapter 54
> System Views to be superior to these two run-on chapters and would rather
> we emulate it in both these places - for what is in the end very little
> additional effort, all mechanical in nature.

I have not been following that thread, and am not really excited about
putting in a huge amount of documentation work here. I'd just like 9.26
to have a mini-TOC at the page head, which <sect2>'s would be enough for.

regards, tom lane