| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 16:13:07 |
| Message-ID: | 27426.1416413587@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/19/2014 06:35 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I seem to share the same opinion with Andrew: its not going to hurt to
>> include this, but its not gonna cause dancing in the streets either. I
>> would characterize that as 2 very neutral and unimpressed people, plus
>> 3 in favour. Which seems enough to commit.
> That's about right, although I would put it a bit stronger than that.
> But if we're the only people unimpressed I'm not going to object further.
FWIW, I would vote against it also. I do not find this to be a natural
extension of RAISE; it adds all sorts of semantic issues. (In particular,
what is the evaluation order of the WHEN versus the other subexpressions
of the RAISE?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-11-19 16:22:45 | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-19 16:12:22 | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |