Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lgYPy-0002aj-JZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 19:51:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lgYPx-00065x-4b for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 19:51:45 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lgYPw-00065p-TD for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 19:51:44 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lgYPu-0008El-D6 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 19:51:44 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 14BJpdI6904086; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:51:39 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Joe Conway cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft In-reply-to: <30b83e29-76c7-d925-b517-26c530204630@joeconway.com> References: <20210510060308.GC6088@momjian.us> <1ff33728-e912-2006-6864-c99abbc99603@joeconway.com> <20210511015645.GL6088@momjian.us> <20210511151120.GS6088@momjian.us> <20210511153702.GU6088@momjian.us> <20210511173014.GV6088@momjian.us> <30b83e29-76c7-d925-b517-26c530204630@joeconway.com> Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway message dated "Tue, 11 May 2021 15:18:29 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <904084.1620762699.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 15:51:39 -0400 Message-ID: <904085.1620762699@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Joe Conway writes: > On 5/11/21 1:30 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> It just feels like this change makes the function's behavior less >> consistent. > See Tom's commit message here: > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=3d0f68dd30612 > In particular: > "The variants of these functions that take > numeric inputs (OIDs or column numbers) are > supposed to return NULL rather than failing > on bad input; this rule reduces problems with > snapshot skew when queries apply the functions > to all rows of a catalog." Yeah, the null-return-for-bad-numeric-input behavior is important. Perhaps a case could be made for returning null for bad text input too, but I don't recall that anybody has asked for that. A case could also be made that changing the behavior on the text side would break applications that expect the current behavior. So I'm disinclined to make a wholesale change there, without more evidence that it's a good idea. regards, tom lane