Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Sketch of extending error handling for subtransactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sketch of extending error handling for subtransactions
Date: 2004-07-26 05:06:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> | I was just looking around the net to see exactly what Oracle's PL/SQL
> | syntax is.  It doesn't seem too unreasonable syntax-wise:
> |   [ snip pl/sql syntax ]

> Is this sintax SQL standard driven ?

No, AFAIK it's just Oracle's syntax.

> If not I'd prefere this one:
>    [ some other syntax ]

Can you point to any SQL standard or existing database that uses your
suggestion?  Oracle is certainly the de facto standard in this area,
and plpgsql in particular is an unabashed effort to follow their PL/SQL

If we decide that we're going to deliberately vary from Oracle's syntax
and semantics, then I have no problem with try/catch as the keywords.
(That's actually my programming heritage as well, I was using exception
handling with those keywords back in the late 70s at HP.)

> ~        	... error handling statements ...

er ... I'm not clear why type names would have anything to do with
exceptions.  What's your vision here exactly?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-26 05:16:00
Subject: Re: pgxs: build infrastructure for extensions v4
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-26 04:57:03
Subject: Re: CVS web interface error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group