On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > It sounds to me like we're crafting something that is specific to and > > can only be used with type input and output functions, so the name > > probably should reflect that rather than being something totally > > generic like ereturn() or error_stash() or whatever. > > My opinion is exactly the opposite. Don't we already have a need > for error-safe type conversions, too, in the JSON stuff? Even if > I couldn't point to a need-it-now requirement, I think we will > eventually find a use for this with some other classes of functions.
<sputters> But you yourself proposed a new node called IOCallContext. It can't be right to have the names be specific to I/O functions in one part of the patch and totally generic in another part. Hmm, but yesterday I see that you were now calling it FuncCallContext. I think the design is evolving in your head as you think about this more, which is totally understandable and actually very good. However, this is also why I think that you should produce the patch you actually want instead of letting other people repeatedly submit patches and then complain that they weren't what you had in mind. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com