pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 11:59:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwaEvXTNxS5RHmMkvr9nJELaz51VkrEN4XsPFGHd5vwe3g@mail.gmail.com >
References: <20221205174231.6wpmbuxafnfzlbuh@alvherre.pgsql >
<85e40849-4458-bbb9-62ee-d9e7faf0c7dc@dunslane.net >
<3323802.1670263204@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<3496391.1670276406@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<20221205234734.sab3fuxy6q2sokjd@alap3.anarazel.de >
<3518534.1670285891@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<20221206005607.lxcrazckoalptwds@alap3.anarazel.de >
<3523582.1670288815@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<40ff1ed1-4245-e343-bffa-c7755b031492@dunslane.net >
<CADkLM=coVJ0Hy-yYtXbN_dhfc453zs_BUTTPHmJqv12Urkd79g@mail.gmail.com >
<3889877.1670358069@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<a6e7ac7e-30ec-5c9d-5134-16072aefc0d7@dunslane.net >
<4009543.1670422833@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<6acddf68-7cb7-e9e7-a5a7-0abc87b3c55b@dunslane.net >
<4026789.1670426602@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAKFQuwb_NG2wiUQ8SK1oFKse0MispB6jsB8_p-Vz76p7MVazwg@mail.gmail.com >
<4031572.1670429176@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAKFQuwaEvXTNxS5RHmMkvr9nJELaz51VkrEN4XsPFGHd5vwe3g@mail.gmail.com >
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Why not do away with two separate functions and define a composite type
>>> (boolean, text) for is_valid to return?
>> I don't see any advantage to that. It would be harder to use in both
>> use-cases.
> I don't really see a use case for either of them individually.
Uh, several people opined that pg_input_is_valid would be of field
interest. If I thought these were only for testing purposes I wouldn't
be especially concerned about documenting them at all.
> Are you suggesting we should not go down the path that v8-0003 does in the
> monitoring section cleanup thread? I find the usability of Chapter 54
> System Views to be superior to these two run-on chapters and would rather
> we emulate it in both these places - for what is in the end very little
> additional effort, all mechanical in nature.
I have not been following that thread, and am not really excited about
putting in a huge amount of documentation work here. I'd just like 9.26
to have a mini-TOC at the page head, which <sect2>'s would be enough for.
regards, tom lane
view thread (175+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink: ../4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, andrew@dunslane.net, corey.huinker@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, mail@joeconway.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
In-Reply-To: <4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox