On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:56 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Sergei Kornilov <s...@zsrv.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> >> Sure, but what are we going to achieve with that number? What > >> >> information user is going to get by that? If it can help us to > ensure > >> >> that it has reset the expected number of statements, then I can see > >> >> the clear usage, but without that, the return value doesn't seem to > >> >> have any clear purpose. So, I don't see much value in breaking > >> >> compatibility. > >> >> > >> >> Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? > >> > > >> > This was proposed by Sergei Kornilov in > >> > https://postgr.es/m/3368121530260...@web21g.yandex.ru saying that "it > >> > would be nice" to return it. Maybe he has an use case in mind? I don't > >> > see one myself. > >> No, i have no specific usecase for this. Silently remove all matching > rows and return void is ok for me. But i still think LOG ereport is not > useful. > > > > > > I would much prefer it to be a return code rather than a forced LOG > message. Log message spam is very much a thing, and things that are logged > as LOG will always be there. > > > > Is any such LOG message present in the latest patch? I agree that the > return code might be better, but there doesn't exist any such (LOG) > thing. I see that it can be helpful for some users if we have any > such return code, but don't know if it doesn't already exist, why that > should be a requirement for this patch? Do you have any strong > opinion about introducing return code with this patch? > I thought that returning the affected number of statements with the change of adding new parameters to the reset function will be helpful to find out how many statements are affected? I can revert it back to void, if I am the only one interested with that change. Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
