| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody have an Oracle PL/SQL reference at hand? |
| Date: | 2004-08-03 01:24:29 |
| Message-ID: | 17371.1091496269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> Oracle defines very few named exceptions. Instead, the intention is that
> you define a name for a numeric exception and use it yourself.
Yeah, I noticed that. It seems a spectacularly bad idea :-(. What
redeeming social value has it got? AFAICS there are no upsides, only
downsides: you might get the numeric code wrong, and never know it
until your code fails in the field; and even if you always get it
right, having every bit of code invent its own random name for the
same exception doesn't seem like it does anything for readability or
maintainability.
In any case we use SQLSTATEs not SQLCODEs, so we have no hope of being
compatible with Oracle at that level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-08-03 01:44:05 | How to crash postgres using savepoints |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-03 01:15:45 | Re: Open items |