Re: Remembering bug #6123

Tom Lane  wrote:
 
> You forgot to attach the patch, but the approach seems totally
> Rube Goldberg to me anyway.  Why not just fix heap_update/
> heap_delete to return the additional information?  It's not like
> we don't whack their parameter lists around regularly.
> 
> Rather than having three output parameters to support the case,
> I'm a bit inclined to merge them into a single-purpose struct
> type.  But that's mostly cosmetic.
 
OK, I got rid of the parrots and candles and added a structure to
hold the data returned only on failure.
 
Am I getting closer?
 
-Kevin