2014-11-19 23:38 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to>: > On 2014-11-19 23:18, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 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". >> > > Finished? Really? > > This was Heikki's take on the discussion that took place a good while ago: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5405ff73.1010...@vmware.com. And in > the same thread you also said you like it: http://www.postgresql.org/ > message-id/CAFj8pRAC-ZWDrbU-uj=xQOWQtbAqR5oXsM1xYOyhZmyeuvZvQ > a...@mail.gmail.co. But perhaps you've changed your mind since then (which > is fine.) Or maybe that was only in the case where we'd have a special > mode where you could opt-in if you're willing to accept the backwards > compatibility issue? > > I also went back to the original thread, and I think Heikki's summary > dismissed e.g. Robert's criticism quite lightly: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobWoSSRNcV_ > ijk3xhsytxb7dv0awgvwkmeurntovez...@mail.gmail.com > > this discuss is too long. I shouldn't remember all details well. Proposal of plpgsql statement ASSERT was there, but there was not a agreement of syntax (as statement X as function call) and one objective disadvantage was request of new keyword. So I throw this idea as unacceptable. I have no objections against a statement ASSERT still - but there was not a strong agreement, so my next proposal (and some common agreement was on RAISE WHEN).
> > .marko >
