From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL: EXIT USING ROLLBACK |
Date: | 2014-09-03 14:20:51 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRtSOoQGYBU4p4VEekHocbUxtv+3e4jgH4AZaKdru4oQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Basically my point is that this just seems like inventing another way to
>> do what one can already do with RAISE, and it doesn't have much redeeming
>> social value to justify the cognitive load of inventing another construct.
>
> The main difference is with RAISE EXCEPTION 'OK'; you cannot know if
> it was *your* line of code which throw the 'OK'-exception or if it
> came from some other function which was called in the block of code.
The real problem here is that if you're using PL/pgsql exceptions for
control-flow reasons, you are taking a huge performance hit for that
notational convenience. I do agree that the syntax of PL/pgsql is
clunky and maybe we should fix that anyway, but I honestly can't
imagine too many people actually wanting to do this once they realize
what it does to the run time of their procedure (and in some cases,
the XID-consumption rate of their database).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-03 14:24:05 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-03 14:20:49 | Re: RLS Design |