On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> FWIW, I would vote against it also. I do not find this to be a natural >>> extension of RAISE; it adds all sorts of semantic issues. (In particular, >>> what is the evaluation order of the WHEN versus the other subexpressions >>> of the RAISE?) > >> What I liked about this syntax was that we could eventually have: >> RAISE ASSERT WHEN stuff; >> ...and if assertions are disabled, we can skip evaluating the >> condition. If you just write an IF .. THEN block you can't do that. > > Well, if that's what you want, let's just invent > > ASSERT condition > > and not tangle RAISE into it. The analogy to EXIT WHEN is a lot > cleaner in this form: no order-of-evaluation issues, no questions > of whether a sub-clause results in totally changing the meaning > of the command. And if your argument is partially based on > how much you have to type, doesn't this way dominate all others?
That doesn't bother me any. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
