Tom Lane writes: > [blah] > (This is another reason for "_safe" not being the mot juste :-() My wording was definitely incorrect but I sure you got it: I should have said "safe on error". noerror or error_safe would are definitely more correct.
> In that light, I'm not really convinced that there's a safe use-case > for a behavior like this. I certainly wouldn't risk asking for a couple > of gigabytes on the theory that I could just ask for less if it fails. That's as well a matter of documentation. We could add a couple of lines in for example xfunc.sgml to describe the limitations of such APIs. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
