On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
>
>> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
>> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
>> try_relation_openrv(). Passing true would give the same behavior as
>> presently; passing false would make them behave like the non-try
>> version.
>
> That would be pretty weird, having two functions, one of them sometimes
> doing the same thing as the other one.
>
> I understand Noah's concern but I think your original proposal was saner
> than both options presented so far.
I agree with you. If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
complicate the simple case, but since there's no forseeable need to
add anything other than missing_ok, my gut is to just add it and call
it good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
