Re: PL/pgSQL 2

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Date: 2014-09-03 15:05:15
Message-ID: 20140903150515.GF14893@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 07:54:09AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am not against to improve a PL/pgSQL. And I repeat, what can be done and can
> be done early:
>
> a) ASSERT clause -- with some other modification to allow better static analyze
> of DML statements, and enforces checks in runtime.
>
> b) #option or PRAGMA clause with GUC with function scope that enforce check on
> processed rows after any DML statement
>
> c) maybe introduction automatic variable ROW_COUNT as shortcut for GET
> DIAGNOSTICS rc = ROW_COUNT

All these ideas are being captured somewhere, right? Where?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-09-03 15:06:14 Re: Misleading error message in logical decoding for binary plugins
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2014-09-03 15:02:47 Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE