| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |
| Date: | 2013-09-20 10:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | 523C20B7.3090606@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/20/13 12:09 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 03:43, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>> I think it would be extremely surprising if a command like that got
>> optimized away based on a GUC, so I don't think that would be a good idea.
>
>
> In pl_gram.y, in the rule stmt_raise, determine that this RAISE is for
> ASSERT, and then return NULL if plpgsql_curr_compile->enable_assertions is
> false. Isn't this possible ?
Of course it's possible. But I, as a PostgreSQL user writing PL/PgSQL
code, would be extremely surprised if this new cool option to RAISE
didn't work for some reason. If we use ASSERT the situation is
different; most people will realize it's a new command and works
differently from RAISE.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2013-09-20 10:21:28 | Re: record identical operator - Review |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2013-09-20 10:10:39 | Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues. |