On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 9:20 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > On 2022-Dec-09, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... So I think it might be > >> okay to say "if you want soft error treatment for a domain, > >> make sure its check constraints don't throw errors". > > > I think that's fine. If the user does, say "CHECK (value > 0)" and that > > results in a soft error, that seems to me enough support for now. If > > they want to do something more elaborate, they can write C functions. > > Maybe eventually we'll want to offer some other mechanism that doesn't > > require C, but let's figure out what the requirements are. I don't > > think we know that, at this point. > > A fallback we can offer to anyone with such a problem is "write a > plpgsql function and wrap the potentially-failing bit in an exception > block". Then they get to pay the cost of the subtransaction, while > we're not imposing one on everybody else. > > regards, tom lane >
That exception block will prevent parallel plans. I'm not saying it isn't the best way forward for us, but wanted to make that side effect clear.
