On 23.12.2011 02:01, Phil Sorber wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Phil Sorber<p...@omniti.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
I'm wondering if we oughta just return NULL and be done with it.
+1. There are multiple precedents for that sort of response, which we
introduced exactly so that "SELECT some_function(oid) FROM some_catalog"
wouldn't fail just because one of the rows had gotten deleted by the
time the scan got to it. I don't think it's necessary for the
relation-size functions to be any smarter. Indeed, I'd assumed that's
all that Phil's patch did, since I'd not looked closer till just now.
Here it is without the checking for recently dead. If it can't open
the relation it simply returns NULL.
I think we probably ought to make pg_database_size() and
pg_tablespace_size() behave similarly.
Changes added.
Looks good to me, committed. I added a sentence to the docs mentioning
the new behavior, and also a code comment to explain why returning NULL
is better than throwing an error.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
