From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Ash M <makmarath@hotmail.com>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function
 operation" on DB with functions having same name
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKJS1f9t5_Zfc7KVYmpsMjW3BqR_rXv2B3C7i7qukwdh11+yjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKJS1f9nQyOcCdjJ0HP=DCRanDLOCp7+L2QCnR2BAXM-8Zh5vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <201901071454.wxkoyoq4s5qp@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAKJS1f9t5_Zfc7KVYmpsMjW3BqR_rXv2B3C7i7qukwdh11+yjA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 08 Jan 2019 12:55:54 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19399.1546994166.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:36:06 -0500
Message-ID: <19400.1546994166@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Why can't we just remove the !noError check in the location where the
> error is raised?

I don't like that a bit --- the point of noError is to prevent throwing
errors, and it doesn't seem like it should be LookupFuncName's business
to decide it's smarter than its callers.  Maybe we need another flag
argument?

			regards, tom lane