Re: Error-safe user functions

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2022-12-06 Tu 09:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is any *better* than Safe ... it's longer, less
>> mellifluous, and still subject to misinterpretation.  But it's
>> a possible alternative.

> Yeah, I don't think there's terribly much to choose between 'safe' and
> 'noerror' in terms of meaning.

Yeah, I just wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone thought
it was a better idea.

> I originally chose InputFunctionCallContext as a more neutral name in
> case we wanted to be able to pass some other sort of node for the
> context in future.
> Maybe that was a little too forward looking.

I didn't like that because it seemed to convey nothing at all about
the expected behavior.

            regards, tom lane