| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql defensive mode |
| Date: | 2014-09-06 17:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRApvKppVFDZbX1D6GK++Mm6-4gyHFBjV-koNEeHefTfyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-06 19:54 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
> On 2014-09-06 7:50 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> 2014-09-06 16:31 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
>>
>>> How do you run queries which affect more than one row in this mode?
>>> Because that's crucial as well. We want something we can run 100% of our
>>> code on, but with a slightly more convenient syntax than PL/PgSQL
>>> provides
>>> right when coding defensively in the cases where exactly one row should
>>> be
>>> affected.
>>>
>>>
>> you use a normal function. I don't expect, so it can be too often in your
>> case.
>>
>
> Then that doesn't really solve our problem. Switching between two
> languages on a per-function basis, when both look exactly the same but have
> very different semantics would be a nightmare.
>
It is maximum what is possible
use a different language instead
Pavel
>
>
> .marko
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-06 17:59:44 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-06 17:54:09 | Re: plpgsql defensive mode |