2015-03-26 0:08 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > > On 3/25/15 1:21 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 2015-03-25 0:17 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us > >> <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: > >>> (BTW, is considering > >>> NULL to be a failure the right thing? SQL CHECK conditions consider > >>> NULL to be allowed ...) > > >> This is a question - I am happy with SQL CHECK for data, but I am not > >> sure if same behave is safe for plpgsql (procedural) assert. More > >> stricter behave is safer - and some bugs in procedures are based on > >> unhandled NULLs in variables. So in this topic I prefer implemented > >> behave. It is some like: > > > +1. I think POLA here is that an assert must be true and only true to be > > valid. If someone was unhappy with that they could always coalesce(..., > > true). > > Fair enough. Committed with the other changes. >
Thank you very much regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
