On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > It sounds to me like we're crafting something that is specific to and
> > can only be used with type input and output functions, so the name
> > probably should reflect that rather than being something totally
> > generic like ereturn() or error_stash() or whatever.
>
> My opinion is exactly the opposite. Don't we already have a need
> for error-safe type conversions, too, in the JSON stuff? Even if
> I couldn't point to a need-it-now requirement, I think we will
> eventually find a use for this with some other classes of functions.
<sputters>
But you yourself proposed a new node called IOCallContext. It can't be
right to have the names be specific to I/O functions in one part of
the patch and totally generic in another part.
Hmm, but yesterday I see that you were now calling it FuncCallContext.
I think the design is evolving in your head as you think about this
more, which is totally understandable and actually very good. However,
this is also why I think that you should produce the patch you
actually want instead of letting other people repeatedly submit
patches and then complain that they weren't what you had in mind.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
