On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 5:13 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. Following the previous example you have quoted, I am wondering
> if we'd tweak the names a bit differently. Rather than the
> popo_overflow_safe() pattern from your patch, I would choose a simpler
> popo_safe() as naming convention. That would be also more consistent
> with the names applied to the refactored routines of 4246a977bad6.
>
The reason for this naming was to maintain consistency with the
function date2timestamp_no_overflow() in date.h. I am now uncertain
whether we should rename date2timestamp_no_overflow() as well to align
with the current change. I also lean towards popo_safe() as a naming
convention.
> - result = date2timestamp_opt_overflow(val, &overflow);
> + result = date2timestamp_overflow_safe(val, (Node *) &escontext);
> /* We can ignore the overflow result, since result is useful as-is */
>
> In these cases, why don't you just pass NULL to the routines for the
> error context? (Sorry, I don't have my eyes on the code now, but I
> recall that NULL should work as well, meaning the same as "ignore
> me".)
Won't that result in an error that we are trying to avoid?
Regards,
Amul
