On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:20 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Returning to the naming quagmire -- it occurred to me just now that > it might be helpful to call this style of error reporting "soft" > errors rather than "safe" errors, which'd provide a nice contrast > with "hard" errors thrown by longjmp'ing. That would lead to naming > all the variant functions XXXSoft not XXXSafe. There would still > be commentary to the effect that "soft errors must be safe, in the > sense that there's no question whether it's safe to continue > processing the transaction". Anybody think that'd be an > improvement? > > +1
David J.
