2014-11-19 18:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > 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 > > there was this proposal .. ASSERT statement .. related discuss was finished, because it needs a reserved keyword "ASSERT".
> 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? > > regards, tom lane >
