Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> ... especially in code that's highly unlikely to break once written.
> I don't entirely buy off on the argument that it's code that's 'highly
> unlikely to break once written' though- we do add new relkinds from time
> to time, for example. Perhaps we could have these functions run just
> once per relkind.
Well, the relevant code is likely to be "if relkind is not x, y, or z,
then PG_RETURN_NULL". If we add a new relkind and forget to consider the
function, the outcome is a NULL result that perhaps should not have been
NULL ... but a test like this won't help us notice that.
regards, tom lane
