Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBS3oLwfCGchKWh8foXhozL52qgn3fZLHx+vBd=Ui5p_w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2015-03-26 0:08 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> On 3/25/15 1:21 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2015-03-25 0:17 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>:
>>> (BTW, is considering
>>> NULL to be a failure the right thing? SQL CHECK conditions consider
>>> NULL to be allowed ...)
>> This is a question - I am happy with SQL CHECK for data, but I am not
>> sure if same behave is safe for plpgsql (procedural) assert. More
>> stricter behave is safer - and some bugs in procedures are based on
>> unhandled NULLs in variables. So in this topic I prefer implemented
>> behave. It is some like:
> +1. I think POLA here is that an assert must be true and only true to be
> valid. If someone was unhappy with that they could always coalesce(...,
> true).
Fair enough. Committed with the other changes.
Thank you very much
regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: