On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> On further review, my gut is having second thoughts. This patch is an
> awful lot smaller and easier to verify correctness if I just mess with
> the "try" calls and not the regular ones; and it avoids both
> back-patching hazards for us and hoops for third-party loadable
> modules that are using the non-try versions of those functions to jump
> through.
+1. (Note that the function header comments need a few more updates.)