| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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>, 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: | 2015-10-20 15:09:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAWbU+8h=oc1kjqjOkgFuhvgR2oCj8COL+q3E1zrTocwA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-10-20 16:50 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I fail to see how doing
> >
> > HINT: NULL
> >
> > is much better than just not raising a HINT at all...
>
> I'm not a huge fan of this patch, as previously noted, but I certainly
> agree that if we're going to do it, we should ignore a null argument,
> not print out the word "NULL". Who would ever want that behavior?
>
Probably it was my request. I don't like to using NULL as value, that
should be ignored. The "hint" is clean, there NULL can be ignored, but what
about DETAIL or MESSAGE?
I am strong in my opinion about PLpgSQL RAISE statement behave, but on
second hand, proposed function should not be 100% same as RAISE stmt. More
we can simply add a parameter like "ignore_nulls"
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-20 15:13:27 | Re: Typos in plannodes.h |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2015-10-20 15:03:53 | Re: ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency? |