"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote
>
> You'd need two essentially equivalent versions of SearchSysCache, and
> you'd lose the ability to make the error message identify what was being
> searched for, so I vote no.
>
Both arguments are not necessarily true. This change is quite like what we
made to hash_search(). There is only one SearchSysCache() which will take an
extra argument "isComplain" (vs. HASH_ENTER_NULL). The error message can be
easily identified from the first parameter "cacheId" -- we will add another
field in struct cachedesc which describs the cache name.
Regards,
Qingqing
