On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 08:35:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah. What you are doing would be enough on simplicity ground. The
> test added is also fine enough, it's safe to run even under an
> installcheck. So LGTM to use a minimal implementation.
The patch had a one problem other than style. Contrary to its
existing cousin, the new function is not strict. Hence, it would
crash if given a NULL value for the point name, the library name or
the function name.
Fixed all that, adjusted a few comments, then applied the result.
--
Michael