From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwb8G1NYsTnWxQmsy0FJiXoi+k41YeNEfCL9o3DH30MSBA@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>
 <4037148.1670432349@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwb8G1NYsTnWxQmsy0FJiXoi+k41YeNEfCL9o3DH30MSBA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 07 Dec 2022 10:02:47 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4038999.1670433655.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 12:20:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4039000.1670433655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4039000.1670433655%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> So long as you aren't opposed to the idea if someone else does the work,
> adding sect2 is better than nothing even if it is just a stop-gap measure.

OK, we can agree on that.

As for the other point ---  not sure why I didn't remember this right off,
but the point of two test functions is that one exercises the code path
with details_wanted = true while the other exercises details_wanted =
false.  A combined function would only test the first case.

			regards, tom lane