Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The reg* functions probably need a unified plan as to how far
>> down we want to push non-error behavior. The rest of these
>> I think just require turning the crank along the same lines
>> as in functions already dealt with.
> I would be in favor of an aggressive approach.
I agree that anything based on implementation concerns is going
to look pretty unprincipled to end users. However ...
> It also doesn't seem too bad from an implementation point of view to
> try to cover all the caes.
... I guess you didn't read my remarks upthread about regtypein.
I do not want to try to make gram.y+scan.l non-error-throwing.
regards, tom lane
