Re: Making pgfdw_report_error statically analyzable

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 5:30 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
>>> Hmm, what about 2c. having pgfdw_report_error() with hardcoded elevel,
>>> but complement it with pgfdw_report() that takes the elevel as argument,
>>> asserting that it's less than ERROR?  Then the calls look like
>>> pgfdw_report(WARNING, "doo dee");
>>> which makes sense IMO and we don't have to worry about the future.

>> This is the same as my 2a except for the choice of function name.
>> I'd be fine with it, but Robert didn't like 2a.

> I think I like this a little better than your 2a. It's not a big deal, anyway.

I'll run with Alvaro's suggestion, then.

            regards, tom lane