Re: plpgsql raise - parameters can be expressions

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, the reason I didn't do something about RAISE in 8.0 was that
>> I thought we should reconsider the whole design of the statement

> The ensuing discussion on this sounds good to me; should I apply Pavel's
> RAISE patch now, or wait for the subsequent work on specifying a
> particular SQLSTATE?

The patch seems to me to be OK as far as it goes. I brought up the
other points only because I wanted to be sure that it wouldn't be
inconsistent with the next step; but it seems we're pretty well agreed
that we aren't going to do anything that would break this. So I have no
problem with applying as-is, rather than waiting for an all-inclusive
patch.

But you had mentioned wanting to look at reducing overhead by using
exec_eval_expr(); were you intending to do that before committing?

As far as the subsequent discussion itself goes, Pavel and I seem to
be pretty unsuccessful at convincing each other of our respective
visions of what an exception ought to be. Any opinions? Should
we be taking this thread to -hackers for a wider audience?

regards, tom lane