Re: Error-safe user functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Error-safe user functions
Date
Msg-id 4039000.1670433655@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Error-safe user functions  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches