From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
Date: | 2014-09-17 19:52:29 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC--EZp9sNcGFeV2ZnLVr8k1jmWen=Q7xY4yw78LUjPWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-17 21:36 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On 9/17/14 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > What is difference between content of variable or content of database?
> > You can test any prerequisite, but when this prerequisite is not solved,
> > than exception is very very hard without possible handling.
>
> If the assertion tests arbitrary Boolean expressions, then we can't stop
> the user from abusing them.
>
>
I am thinking so unhandled signal can be good defence. (and possibility to
disable assertions)
We design a database system, so we should to reflect it - plpgsql (or any
PL environment) are not classic language. There are lot of database
specific constructs.
> But it's another thing if we design specific syntax that encourages such
> abuse, as proposed earlier.
>
>
Other note - I am thinking so ANSI SQL Assertions and PL assertions are
independent features. Although they can have some common goals.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-09-17 20:07:21 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-09-17 19:42:08 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |