| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 16:51:24 |
| Message-ID: | 5405F58C.3070201@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/2/14 6:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Marko posted a patch to add assertions to PL/pgSQL last year, see
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5234AF3F.4000409@joh.to. It was a
> long thread, but in the end I think everyone was more or less OK with
> the syntax "ASSERT <condition>;". I also think that syntax is fine, and
> it would be a nice feature, assuming we can avoid reserving the ASSERT
> keyword.
Did you really mean to say "more or less OK"? I didn't wade through the
thread, but my recollection is that I was the only one truly OK with it,
some people expressed concerns but appeared undecided, and the rest of
the participants were completely against it.
> I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an
> UPDATE only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after
> the update.
I agree with Joel here; I think a shorter syntax is necessary.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2014-09-02 16:55:01 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-09-02 16:48:23 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |