Re: Error-safe user functions

[ continuing the naming quagmire... ]

I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Not that I have a suggestion for a better name, but I don't particularly
>> like "Safe" denoting non-erroring input function calls. There's too many
>> interpretations of safe - e.g. safe against privilege escalation issues
>> or such.

> Yeah, I'm not that thrilled with it either --- but it's a reasonably
> on-point modifier, and short.

It occurs to me that another spelling could be NoError (or _noerror
where not using camel case).  There's some precedent for that already;
and where we have it, it has the same implication of reporting rather
than throwing certain errors, without making a guarantee about all
errors.  For instance lookup_rowtype_tupdesc_noerror won't prevent
throwing errors if catalog corruption is detected inside the catcaches.

I'm not sure this is any *better* than Safe ... it's longer, less
mellifluous, and still subject to misinterpretation.  But it's
a possible alternative.

            regards, tom lane