Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:31:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd rather do something like the attached, which makes it more of an >> explicit goal that we won't fail on bad input. (As written, we'd only >> fail on bad classId, which is a case that really shouldn't happen.)
> Okay, that part looks fine.
Pushed like that, then.
regards, tom lane
