| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |
| Date: | 2012-01-12 22:31:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4F0F0AF70200002500044750@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You forgot to attach the patch, but the approach seems totally
> Rube Goldberg to me anyway. Why not just fix heap_update/
> heap_delete to return the additional information? It's not like
> we don't whack their parameter lists around regularly.
>
> Rather than having three output parameters to support the case,
> I'm a bit inclined to merge them into a single-purpose struct
> type. But that's mostly cosmetic.
OK, I got rid of the parrots and candles and added a structure to
hold the data returned only on failure.
Am I getting closer?
-Kevin
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| bug6123-v5.patch | text/plain | 20.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-12 22:33:08 | Re: ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-12 22:22:46 | ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION |