Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message
Date: 2015-10-17 16:42:28
Message-ID: 56227A74.80304@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/15/15 11:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I don't think so ignoring NULL in RAISE statement is good idea (it is
> not safe). We can replace NULL by some string (like "NULL") by default.
> I am thinking about other possibilities.

What I was trying to say is that if the argument to a USING option is
NULL then RAISE should skip over it, as if it hadn't been applied at
all. Similar to how the code currently tests for \0.

> 1. some RAISE statement flag - but there was strong disagreement when I
> did it last time
> 2. some plpgsql GUC variables like plpgsq.raise_ignore_null
> 3. accept a function from this patch
>
> Now, I am thinking so @3 is good option. It can be really useful as last
> rescue for other PL without possibility to raise rich PostgreSQL
> exception - currently PLPythonu, partially PLPerl (where are more
> issues), probably in others.

I agree, assuming the patch exposes all the stuff you can do with USING
in plpgsql.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-10-17 16:49:03 Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-10-17 16:30:58 Re: Improve the concurency of vacuum full table and select statement on the same relation