From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |
Date: | 2015-08-22 00:27:05 |
Message-ID: | 55D7C1D9.4010801@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/21/15 7:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Applied with some fixes. The major oversight was that EXIT does*not*
> have the same rules as CONTINUE, as is clearly documented (though in your
> defense, there was no regression test verifying the behavior ... there is
> now).
Yay more tests.
>> >I refactored the 3
>> >places that were doing the check into exec_stmt_block(), renaming the
>> >original function exec_stmt_block_rc for the one place that still needs
>> >the return code.
> I did not like that part. Simpler and less code churn to just take out
> the now-unnecessary outer-level tests. Also, your way lost the separate
> error texts for "control reached end of function" and "control reached end
> of trigger procedure", which while maybe not very important was not an
> agreed-to change.
Guess I didn't look hard enough at what I was removing. I was of two
minds on the refactoring anyway.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-22 00:33:56 | Re: Memory allocation in spi_printtup() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-22 00:21:58 | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |