On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011: > >> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv() >> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and >> try_relation_openrv(). Passing true would give the same behavior as >> presently; passing false would make them behave like the non-try >> version. > > That would be pretty weird, having two functions, one of them sometimes > doing the same thing as the other one. > > I understand Noah's concern but I think your original proposal was saner > than both options presented so far.
I agree with you. If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to complicate the simple case, but since there's no forseeable need to add anything other than missing_ok, my gut is to just add it and call it good. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
