From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor() |
Date: | 2023-07-07 23:47:21 |
Message-ID: | ZKikCc68fWX+kQSX@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 06:41:49PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.06.23 01:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> While working on a different patch, I have noted three code paths that
>> call changeDependencyFor() but don't check that they do not return
>> errors. In all the three cases (support function, extension/schema
>> and object/schema), it seems to me that only one dependency update is
>> expected.
>
> Why can't changeDependencyFor() raise the error itself?
There is appeal in that, but I can't really get excited for any
out-of-core callers of this routine. Even if you would not lose much
error context, it would not be completely flexible if the number of
dependencies to switch is a variable number.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-07-08 00:17:21 | Re: BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-07-07 23:13:44 | Re: DecodeInterval fixes |