Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The reg* functions probably need a unified plan as to how far >> down we want to push non-error behavior. The rest of these >> I think just require turning the crank along the same lines >> as in functions already dealt with.
> I would be in favor of an aggressive approach. I agree that anything based on implementation concerns is going to look pretty unprincipled to end users. However ... > It also doesn't seem too bad from an implementation point of view to > try to cover all the caes. ... I guess you didn't read my remarks upthread about regtypein. I do not want to try to make gram.y+scan.l non-error-throwing. regards, tom lane