2015-10-18 21:13 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>:

> On 10/17/15 11:49 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2015-10-17 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com
>> <mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>>:
>>     On 10/15/15 11:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>         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.
>>     What I was trying to say is that if the argument to a USING option
>>     is NULL then RAISE should skip over it, as if it hadn't been applied
>>     at all. Similar to how the code currently tests for \0.
>> I understand, but I don't prefer this behave. The NULL is strange value
>> and should be signalized.
> So instead of raising the message we wanted, we throw a completely
> different exception? How does that make sense?

It is partially wrong because we handle all fields same. It has sense for
"message" fields, and has not sense for other fields. In this case the text
"NULL" will be better.

> More to the point, if RAISE operated this way then it would be trivial to
> create a fully functional plpgsql wrapper around it.

I have a different opinion - better to have propossed function in core.
What I know, the NULL is not use in Postgres as "ignore value", and I am
thinking, it is good idea.



> --
> 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

Reply via email to