On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:07 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I originally chose InputFunctionCallContext as a more neutral name in > > case we wanted to be able to pass some other sort of node for the > > context in future. > > Maybe that was a little too forward looking. > > I didn't like that because it seemed to convey nothing at all about > the expected behavior.
I feel like this can go either way. If we pick a name that conveys a specific intended behavior now, and then later we want to pass some other sort of node for some purpose other than ignoring errors, it's unpleasant to have a name that sounds like it can only ignore errors. But if we never use it for anything other than ignoring errors, a specific name is clearer. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
