Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 08:15:07AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> We should really have a more clearly defined policy around this, but my > >> recollection is that we often prefer to return NULL rather than throwing > >> an error for the convenience of people doing things like querying > >> pg_class using similar functions. > > > > Yes, that's visibly right. At least that's what I can see from the > > various pg_get_*def and pg_*_is_visible. Returning NULL would indeed > > be more consistent. > > Thinking more about your argument, scanning fully pg_class is quite > sensible as well because there is no need to apply an extra qual on > relkind, so let's change the function as you suggest, by returning NULL > on invalid relation type. Any opinions about the attached then which > does the switch?
Looks alright on a quick glance, but shouldn't you also update the comment..? Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
