| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, 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: | 2022-12-07 17:20:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4039000.1670433655@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So long as you aren't opposed to the idea if someone else does the work,
> adding sect2 is better than nothing even if it is just a stop-gap measure.
OK, we can agree on that.
As for the other point --- not sure why I didn't remember this right off,
but the point of two test functions is that one exercises the code path
with details_wanted = true while the other exercises details_wanted =
false. A combined function would only test the first case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-07 17:28:03 | Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-07 17:17:34 | Re: Error-safe user functions |