| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
| Date: | 2017-01-09 23:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAL9smLA4bZFFF4w1b_ahpR=xEA1wAhnLLKwnWwX=_+gGJivvyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 1/9/17 5:30 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>
My idea was that the currently unsupported combination of NOT NULL and
>> no DEFAULT would mean "has to be assigned to a non-NULL value before it
>> can be read from, or an exception is thrown". Solves the most common
>> use case and is backwards compatible.
>>
>
> That won't allow you to use a variable in multiple places though... is
> there a reason we couldn't support something like IS DEFINED and UNSET?
>
I don't understand what your use case is. Could you demonstrate that with
some code you'd write if these features were in?
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-09 23:53:45 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-09 23:47:43 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |