On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
On further review, my gut is having second thoughts. This patch is an
awful lot smaller and easier to verify correctness if I just mess with
the "try" calls and not the regular ones; and it avoids both
back-patching hazards for us and hoops for third-party loadable
modules that are using the non-try versions of those functions to jump
through.
Third try attached...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
