Re: Making pgfdw_report_error statically analyzable

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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com