From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
In-reply-to: <d29e076b-d7b8-9bb1-4eef-d4e22d7ff1c2@dunslane.net>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqH8gTp2uNN3QtgeOSgHhZUZz1=0U+JObJJUmEoch_269Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220830092008.6dbublx6la226zis@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+HiwqFvP23i3kTHt6TW4FqO6he1YSJXeyGOdFV_YbP=xeS99A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f54ebd2b-0e67-d1c6-4ff7-5d732492d1a0@postgrespro.ru>
 <CA+HiwqHLVPdA7e3Y-S5giKPsqQPf8M0nuvgz8+3D8GjQexXLYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqECHA0aUi0Bo3tdYTJ27i2MRWUZ5BewQoO0WgRvRXQO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <abd31e0b-56aa-044f-6700-8a1c1bba87f1@dunslane.net>
 <2276d20d-43ff-f9f6-5c9c-c2875739e66c@postgresql.org>
 <20220831154916.pgspuz3bp4427int@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <4151123.1661961884@sss.pgh.pa.us> <13351.1661965592@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobX2330ByUrrSo1SbcoRPYBbZ1bp3h54hLsxsd1AeBocQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <14814.1661966096@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <379e5365-9670-e0de-ee08-57ba61cbc976@postgrespro.ru>
 <0574201c-bd35-01af-1557-8936f99ce5aa@postgrespro.ru>
 <d29e076b-d7b8-9bb1-4eef-d4e22d7ff1c2@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Thu, 29 Sep 2022 23:05:07 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <522208.1664508535.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 23:28:55 -0400
Message-ID: <522209.1664508535@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/522209.1664508535%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I suggest just submitting the Input function stuff on its own, I think
> that means not patches 3,4,15 at this stage. Maybe we would also need a
> small test module to call the functions, or at least some of them.
> The earlier we can get this in the earlier SQL/JSON patches based on it
> can be considered.

+1

> . proissafe isn't really a very informative name. Safe for what? maybe
> proerrorsafe or something would be better?

I strongly recommend against having a new pg_proc column at all.
I doubt that you really need it, and having one will create
enormous mechanical burdens to making the conversion.  (For example,
needing a catversion bump every time we convert one more function,
or an extension version bump to convert extensions.)

			regards, tom lane