> On 6 Mar 2024, at 11:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2024-Mar-06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> Good catch, that's an incorrect copy/paste, it should use ERRCODE_NO_DATA. >> I'm >> not convinced that a function to read from a pipe should consider not reading >> anything successful by default, output is sort expected here. We could add a >> flag parameter to use for signalling that no data is fine though as per the >> attached (as of yet untested) diff? > > I think adding dead code is not a great plan, particularly if it's hairy > enough that we need to very carefully dissect what happens in error > cases. IMO if and when somebody has a need for an empty return string > being acceptable, they can add it then.
I agree with that, there are no callers today and I can't imagine one off the cuff. The change to use the appropriate errcode still applies though. -- Daniel Gustafsson
