From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
        Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
In-reply-to: <2b1e7d56-6f37-bad9-9702-053ab55ecf60@dunslane.net>
References: <4009543.1670422833@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <6acddf68-7cb7-e9e7-a5a7-0abc87b3c55b@dunslane.net>
 <CAKFQuwYdQqQru9tpMpY4JpCEJ8OeN8kwmBG6DY2QyzE+5znA6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4111458.1670444176@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3211.1670452341@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20221207233518.sudtaxn6omtvpzvr@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <186288.1670517119@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZOhQ8FfWH9_r58tLtb=AwBn=7ugO2PHh6moR8jhYviUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221208215836.3naznqmal2m32hzc@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <512551.1670540229@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20221209023351.l362yejerfoq3lfp@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <633426.1670554790@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <01ff2051-806d-af2f-4f9e-793f7ba9a3f8@dunslane.net>
 <778369.1670598993@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5aaf7c66-9df9-21a9-1ff4-02c7848def52@dunslane.net>
 <3bac9841-fe07-713d-fa42-606c225567d6@dunslane.net>
 <1436686.1670701118@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2b1e7d56-6f37-bad9-9702-053ab55ecf60@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:11:35 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1805343.1670779451.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 12:24:11 -0500
Message-ID: <1805344.1670779451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1805344.1670779451%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2022-12-10 Sa 14:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have not done anything here about errors within JsonbValueToJsonb.
>> There would need to be another round of API-extension in that area
>> if we want to be able to trap its errors.  As you say, those are mostly
>> about exceeding implementation size limits, so I suppose one could argue
>> that they are not so different from palloc failure.  It's still annoying.
>> If people are good with the changes attached, I might take a look at
>> that.

> Awesome.

I spent some time looking at this, and was discouraged to conclude
that the notational mess would probably be substantially out of
proportion to the value.  The main problem is that we'd have to change
the API of pushJsonbValue, which has more than 150 call sites, most
of which would need to grow a new test for failure return.  Maybe
somebody will feel like tackling that at some point, but not me today.

			regards, tom lane