Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address
Date: 2011-06-22 17:36:00
Message-ID: BANLkTik2GeWfMYGB9OT9kpZ6BqFxr_HNHQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
>
>> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
>> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
>> try_relation_openrv().  Passing true would give the same behavior as
>> presently; passing false would make them behave like the non-try
>> version.
>
> That would be pretty weird, having two functions, one of them sometimes
> doing the same thing as the other one.
>
> I understand Noah's concern but I think your original proposal was saner
> than both options presented so far.

I agree with you. If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
complicate the simple case, but since there's no forseeable need to
add anything other than missing_ok, my gut is to just add it and call
it good.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-06-22 18:19:44 Re: Repeated PredicateLockRelation calls during seqscan
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-22 17:00:23 Re: Indication of db-shared tables