Re: Error-safe user functions

On 2022-12-06 Tu 09:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ 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.
>
>             


Yeah, I don't think there's terribly much to choose between 'safe' and
'noerror' in terms of meaning.

I originally chose InputFunctionCallContext as a more neutral name in
case we wanted to be able to pass some other sort of node for the
context in future.

Maybe that was a little too forward looking.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com