Tom Lane writes:
> [blah]
> (This is another reason for "_safe" not being the mot juste :-()
My wording was definitely incorrect but I sure you got it: I should
have said "safe on error". noerror or error_safe would are definitely
more correct.
> In that light, I'm not really convinced that there's a safe use-case
> for a behavior like this. I certainly wouldn't risk asking for a couple
> of gigabytes on the theory that I could just ask for less if it fails.
That's as well a matter of documentation. We could add a couple of
lines in for example xfunc.sgml to describe the limitations of such
APIs.
--
Michael
