Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:One question that I'd like some feedback on is the following: should the same change be applied to other functions that might throw an ERROR based on the remote side of the connection? For example, currently if dblink() is used in an attempt to access a non-existent remote table, an ERROR is thrown locally in response, killing any currently open transaction. Thoughts?
What seems like a good idea after a few moments' thought is to leave the behavior of the various dblink_foo() functions the same as now (ie, throw error on remote error) and add new API functions named something like dblink_foo_noerror() that don't throw error but return a recognizable failure code instead. My argument for this approach is that there is no situation in which the programmer shouldn't have to think when he writes a given call whether it will elog or return an error indicator, because if he wants an error indicator then he is going to have to check for it.
I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it is now; with it, you could specify the old or new behavior.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings