So right now I'm thinking I like my original proposal
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00357.php
with the exception that we should go with
SQLSTATE 'xyzzy'
as the syntax in EXCEPTION lists. Also I'm willing to go with
ERRCODE rather than CODE as the name of the
Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other db's go with SQLCODE and SQLSTATE.
Would SQLCODE be better than ERRCODE ?
No, because SQLCODE has a specific meaning, and it's *not* either a
condition name or a SQLSTATE --- it's the old SQL89-era error code
numbering. I think this
On May 12, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
3. I think we should allow the user to specify the error message the
same way as the other options, that is
RAISE level USING MESSAGE = string_expression [ , ... ]
The %-format business has always struck me as a bit weird, and it's
much more
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
who write this patch?
Well, like I said, I'm willing to adjust the patch to whatever syntax
we come up with.
After sleeping on it I'm a bit less excited about using the SQL/PSM
SIGNAL syntax; the reason being that if we use that, and then sometime
in the
2008/5/13 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
who write this patch?
Well, like I said, I'm willing to adjust the patch to whatever syntax
we come up with.
After sleeping on it I'm a bit less excited about using the SQL/PSM
SIGNAL syntax; the reason being
On May 13, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
So right now I'm thinking I like my original proposal
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00357.php
with the exception that we should go with
SQLSTATE 'xyzzy'
as the syntax in EXCEPTION lists.
Not to be a PITA about
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not to be a PITA about this, but I reeally think users are going to
complain if we remove the % replacement stuff... Is there no way to
keep that with the new syntax?
Uh, I didn't remove anything.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via
I've started to look over Pavel's revised RAISE patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-05/msg00187.php
and I've got a few quibbles with the syntax choices.
Pavel proposes extending RAISE like this:
RAISE level 'format' [, expression [, ...] ] [ USING ( option = value [, ... ]
)
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the elephant in the room is the issue of Oracle compatibility.
None of this looks anything even a little bit like Oracle's RAISE
command. Oracle allows
RAISE exception_name ;
RAISE ;
I'm probably in the minority, but I care more about
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The parentheses around the USING list seem useless; let's drop 'em.
Yes.
2. I think the separation between SQLSTATE and CONDITION is just
complication. A SQLSTATE is required to be exactly 5 digits and/or
upper case
Brendan Jurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that the % formatting in the RAISE message is weird, but it is
useful.
Sure, I'm not proposing removing it.
What would we do if the user specifies a %-formatted message as well
as a MESSAGE option?
Throw an error (just like if they specified
2008/5/12 Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the elephant in the room is the issue of Oracle compatibility.
None of this looks anything even a little bit like Oracle's RAISE
command. Oracle allows
RAISE exception_name ;
RAISE ;
I'm
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Brendan Jurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that the % formatting in the RAISE message is weird, but it is
useful.
Sure, I'm not proposing removing it.
What would we do if the user specifies a %-formatted message as well
as a MESSAGE option?
Throw
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It would get less annoying if we allowed user-declared exception names.
Tom, it's exactly like my patch that you rejected two years ago.
Uh, no, not exactly like --- that patch doesn't have anything to do
with the
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've started to look over Pavel's revised RAISE patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-05/msg00187.php
and I've got a few quibbles with the syntax choices.
Pavel proposes extending RAISE like this:
RAISE level 'format' [, expression [,
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It would get less annoying if we allowed user-declared exception names.
Tom, it's exactly like my patch that you rejected two years ago.
Uh, no, not exactly like --- that
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm probably in the minority, but I care more about SQL/PSM
compatibility than Oracle compatibility.
Well, a different line of attack would be to leave RAISE as-is and adopt
the SQL/PSM syntax for a modernized command. What I'm seeing in Part 4
is
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm probably in the minority, but I care more about SQL/PSM
compatibility than Oracle compatibility.
Well, a different line of attack would be to leave RAISE as-is and adopt
the SQL/PSM syntax for a modernized
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm probably in the minority, but I care more about SQL/PSM
compatibility than Oracle compatibility.
Well, a different line of attack would be to leave RAISE as-is and adopt
the SQL/PSM syntax for a modernized
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I like this syntax, but I am not if it's good idea add new similar
statement. I don't know - but maybe it's can be better then extending
RAISE - and way to get consensus.
I looked a bit more at the SQL spec. It already defines a condition
information
On Monday 12 May 2008 14:40:46 Pavel Stehule wrote:
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It would get less annoying if we allowed user-declared exception names.
Tom, it's exactly like my patch that you
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 12 May 2008 14:40:46 Pavel Stehule wrote:
In plpgsql I prefer PL/SQL syntax.
I think nod's toward PL/SQL compatability should be given in general.
This position seems just about entirely unhelpful for resolving the
problem at hand, because
2008/5/12 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I like this syntax, but I am not if it's good idea add new similar
statement. I don't know - but maybe it's can be better then extending
RAISE - and way to get consensus.
I looked a bit more at the SQL spec. It
23 matches
Mail list logo
