| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
| Date: | 2017-01-10 01:02:48 |
| Message-ID: | 9f82eab5-4dd3-5b06-e929-44052636eef4@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/17 6:07 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> One use case is NEW and OLD in triggers. Checking to see if one or
> the other is set is easier than checking TG_OP. It's also going to
> be faster (probably MUCH faster; IIRC the comparison currently
> happens via SPI).
>
>
> This sounds useless.
I guess you've not written much non-trivial trigger code then... the
amount of code duplication you end up with is quite ridiculous. It's
also a good example of why treating this as an exception and trapping
isn't a good solution either: you can already do that with triggers today.
Being able to check the existence of a variable is a very common idiom
in other languages, so I'm don't see why plpgsql shouldn't have it.
--
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
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-10 01:12:38 | Re: RustgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-10 00:38:02 | Re: Increase pltcl test coverage |