Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYCh+b85-yM943VkUdGuXnr-GVHtGeeWn1bCJN8wFKBfw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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 > > 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? That doesn't bother me any. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: