Re: PL/PgSQL STRICT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marko Tiikkaja" <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL STRICT
Date: 2013-02-26 22:03:42
Message-ID: 27477.1361916222@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Marko Tiikkaja" <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> If I'm counting correctly, we have four votes for this patch and two votes
> against it.

> Any other opinions?

FWIW, I share Peter's poor opinion of this syntax. I can see the
appeal of not having to write an explicit check of the rowcount
afterwards, but that appeal is greatly weakened by the strange syntax.
(IOW, if you were counting me as a + vote, that was only a vote for
the concept --- on reflection I don't much like this implementation.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2013-02-26 22:16:34 initdb ignoring options?
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2013-02-26 21:28:41 Re: PL/PgSQL STRICT