From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stepan <sndcppg@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SPI_connect, SPI_connect_ext return type
In-reply-to: <CAMaYL5Z9Uk8cD9qGz9QaZ2UBJFOu7jFx5Mwbznz-1tBbPDQZow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaYL5Z9Uk8cD9qGz9QaZ2UBJFOu7jFx5Mwbznz-1tBbPDQZow@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Stepan <sndcppg@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:55:46 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3133981.1723299124.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 10:12:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3133982.1723299124@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3133982.1723299124%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Stepan <sndcppg@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, hackers! If you look at the code in the src/backend/executor/spi.c file,
> you will see the SPI_connect function familiar to many there, which
> internally simply calls SPI_connect_ext. The return type is int, at the end
> it says return SPI_OK_CONNECT;
> It confuses me that nothing but OK, judging by the code, can return.(I
> understand that earlier, before 1833f1a1, it could also return
> SPI_ERROR_CONNECT). Therefore, I suggest making the returned value void
> instead of int and not checking the returned value. What do you think about
> this?

That would break a lot of code (much of it not under our control) to
little purpose; it would also foreclose the option to return to using
SPI_ERROR_CONNECT someday.

We go to a lot of effort to keep the SPI API as stable as we can
across major versions, so I don't see why we'd just randomly make
an API-breaking change like this.

			regards, tom lane