| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 14:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYTtyJQi-7tBS0k1Zn-Cnwsdoem6zGwEVJ+EG2yMPE46w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Returning to the naming quagmire -- it occurred to me just now that
> it might be helpful to call this style of error reporting "soft"
> errors rather than "safe" errors, which'd provide a nice contrast
> with "hard" errors thrown by longjmp'ing. That would lead to naming
> all the variant functions XXXSoft not XXXSafe. There would still
> be commentary to the effect that "soft errors must be safe, in the
> sense that there's no question whether it's safe to continue
> processing the transaction". Anybody think that'd be an
> improvement?
>
>
+1
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-12-07 15:04:01 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Previous Message | Muhammad Usama | 2022-12-07 14:48:01 | Re: Allow pageinspect's bt_page_stats function to return a set of rows instead of a single row |