On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I originally chose InputFunctionCallContext as a more neutral name in
> > case we wanted to be able to pass some other sort of node for the
> > context in future.
> > Maybe that was a little too forward looking.
>
> I didn't like that because it seemed to convey nothing at all about
> the expected behavior.
I feel like this can go either way. If we pick a name that conveys a
specific intended behavior now, and then later we want to pass some
other sort of node for some purpose other than ignoring errors, it's
unpleasant to have a name that sounds like it can only ignore errors.
But if we never use it for anything other than ignoring errors, a
specific name is clearer.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
