Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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
