| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 14:10:39 |
| Message-ID: | 546CA4DF.9090502@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/2014 06:35 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 21:19, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I see this as natural extension of the conditional block control
>> which we already have for loops with CONTINUE WHEN and EXIT WHEN. This
>> basically extends it to any block and it seems quite natural to have it for
>> me...
> That's a reasonable argument to include it.
>
> I seem to share the same opinion with Andrew: its not going to hurt to
> include this, but its not gonna cause dancing in the streets either. I
> would characterize that as 2 very neutral and unimpressed people, plus
> 3 in favour. Which seems enough to commit.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand, Andrew?
>
That's about right, although I would put it a bit stronger than that.
But if we're the only people unimpressed I'm not going to object further.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-11-19 14:27:56 | Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-19 13:49:13 | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |