| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Date: | 2015-03-25 23:08:16 |
| Message-ID: | 14089.1427324896@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/25/15 1:21 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2015-03-25 0:17 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
>> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>>:
>>> (BTW, is considering
>>> NULL to be a failure the right thing? SQL CHECK conditions consider
>>> NULL to be allowed ...)
>> This is a question - I am happy with SQL CHECK for data, but I am not
>> sure if same behave is safe for plpgsql (procedural) assert. More
>> stricter behave is safer - and some bugs in procedures are based on
>> unhandled NULLs in variables. So in this topic I prefer implemented
>> behave. It is some like:
> +1. I think POLA here is that an assert must be true and only true to be
> valid. If someone was unhappy with that they could always coalesce(...,
> true).
Fair enough. Committed with the other changes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-25 23:11:06 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add macros wrapping all usage of gcc's __attribute__. |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-03-25 22:52:14 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |