Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement

2014-11-19 18:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> FWIW, I would vote against it also. I do not find this to be a natural
> >> extension of RAISE; it adds all sorts of semantic issues. (In
> particular,
> >> what is the evaluation order of the WHEN versus the other subexpressions
> >> of the RAISE?)
>
> > What I liked about this syntax was that we could eventually have:
> > RAISE ASSERT WHEN stuff;
> > ...and if assertions are disabled, we can skip evaluating the
> > condition. If you just write an IF .. THEN block you can't do that.
>
> Well, if that's what you want, let's just invent
>
> ASSERT condition
>
>
there was this proposal .. ASSERT statement .. related discuss was
finished, because it needs a reserved keyword "ASSERT".

> and not tangle RAISE into it. The analogy to EXIT WHEN is a lot
> cleaner in this form: no order-of-evaluation issues, no questions
> of whether a sub-clause results in totally changing the meaning
> of the command. And if your argument is partially based on
> how much you have to type, doesn't this way dominate all others?
>
> regards, tom lane
>