Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> writes:
>> It's not generally safe to suppress errors like that. You could leak
>> locks or tuple descriptors etc. And if the error is not "no scuh
>> table", but e.g. out of memory, you don't want to suppress it anyway.
> Thanks. I will create more "invasive" patch.
Why is any of this necessary? It sure looks like you are solving a
problem at the wrong level.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
