| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Date: | 2022-12-10 14:20:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1260231.1670682027@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2022-Dec-09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... So I think it might be
>> okay to say "if you want soft error treatment for a domain,
>> make sure its check constraints don't throw errors".
> I think that's fine. If the user does, say "CHECK (value > 0)" and that
> results in a soft error, that seems to me enough support for now. If
> they want to do something more elaborate, they can write C functions.
> Maybe eventually we'll want to offer some other mechanism that doesn't
> require C, but let's figure out what the requirements are. I don't
> think we know that, at this point.
A fallback we can offer to anyone with such a problem is "write a
plpgsql function and wrap the potentially-failing bit in an exception
block". Then they get to pay the cost of the subtransaction, while
we're not imposing one on everybody else.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-12-10 14:35:12 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-12-10 12:20:13 | Re: Error-safe user functions |