Re: Error-safe user functions

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2022-12-03 Sa 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Bikeshedding on my name choices is welcome.  I know Robert is
>> dissatisfied with "ereturn", but I'm content with that so I didn't
>> change it here.

> details_please seems more informal than our usual style. details_wanted
> maybe?

Yeah, Corey didn't like that either.  "details_wanted" works for me.

> Soon after we get this done I think we'll find we need to extend this to
> non-input functions. But that can wait a short while.

I'm curious to know exactly which other use-cases you foresee.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to write some draft code to verify
that this mechanism will work conveniently for them.

            regards, tom lane