2015-10-16 2:47 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>: > On 9/10/15 10:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >The only complaint I've seen in this thread that seems like a valid >>> >deficiency is that RAISE can't deal with treating the error severity >>> level >>> >as a variable. But surely we should address that as a new RAISE >>> feature, >>> >not by inventing a SQL wrapper that will need to reproduce every >>> existing >>> >RAISE feature before it can think about solving anything new. >>> >> That seems like something independently useful. >> > fa > If we're up for that the other thing I'd add is having raise ignore > anything supplied by USING that's NULL, instead of treating it as an error. > That would make it very easy to create a wrapper function that exposes the > full capabilities of RAISE. >
I don't think so ignoring NULL in RAISE statement is good idea (it is not safe). We can replace NULL by some string (like "NULL") by default. I am thinking about other possibilities. 1. some RAISE statement flag - but there was strong disagreement when I did it last time 2. some plpgsql GUC variables like plpgsq.raise_ignore_null 3. accept a function from this patch Now, I am thinking so @3 is good option. It can be really useful as last rescue for other PL without possibility to raise rich PostgreSQL exception - currently PLPythonu, partially PLPerl (where are more issues), probably in others. Regards Pavel > -- > Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX > Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL > Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
