Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail() > >> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe(). > > > > I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW. > > I don't care for noerror() because it probably still will error in > some circumstances; just not for OOM. Yes, but that seems fine to me. We have other functions with "noerror" flags, and they can still fail under some circumstances -- just not if the error is the most commonly considered scenario in which they fail. The first example I found is LookupAggNameTypeNames(); there are many more. I don't think this causes any confusion in practice. Another precendent we have is something like "missing_ok" as a flag name in get_object_address() and other places; following that, we could have this new function as "palloc_oom_ok" or something like that. But it doesn't seem an improvement to me. (I'm pretty sure we all agree that this must not be a flag to palloc but rather a new function.) Of all the ones you proposed above, the one I like the most is palloc_no_oom, but IMO palloc_noerror is still better. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
