| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |
| Date: | 2015-10-20 15:15:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaEtoyyk+srpugd4o+JMqabzo2YEObyU_UC=75NqHKJnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Probably it was my request. I don't like to using NULL as value, that should
> be ignored. The "hint" is clean, there NULL can be ignored, but what about
> DETAIL or MESSAGE?
If the field is required - as MESSAGE is - then its absence is an
error. If the field is optional, treat a NULL if the parameter were
not supplied.
> I am strong in my opinion about PLpgSQL RAISE statement behave, but on
> second hand, proposed function should not be 100% same as RAISE stmt. More
> we can simply add a parameter like "ignore_nulls"
I would be willing to bet you a drink that 99.9% of people will want
the behavior Jim is advocating, so I don't think this should be
configurable.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-20 15:16:13 | Re: ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-20 15:13:27 | Re: Typos in plannodes.h |