From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Amit Khandekar <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |
Date: | 2013-11-19 15:40:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaf_yz==3hqmqN-93Tj-H7sUMruXYmG-mq4rH3Ycc_7pg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> [ rebased patch for RAISE WHEN ]
>
> I have to say I do not see the point of this. It does nothing you
> can't do already with "IF condition THEN RAISE ...". And frankly
> the RAISE statement has got too darn many options already. We don't
> need yet more cruft on it that we'll have to maintain forevermore.
>
> If this were improving standards compliance somehow, I'd be okay
> with it; but what other implementation has got this?
This is a fair point. I think the goal was to get to RAISE ASSERT
WHEN ...; then, if assertions are off, you do nothing; if they're on,
you error. IF condition THEN RAISE..." isn't a suitable surrogate in
that case because you incur the overhead of testing the condition
regardless.
Now that having been said, I'm a bit wary of adding every new frammish
someone suggests to PL/pgsql. Many of the things we've added recently
are things I anticipate that I'll never use.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-19 15:43:08 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-19 15:37:35 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |