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 command. What I'm seeing in Part 4 > is > > <signal statement> ::= > SIGNAL <signal value> > [ <set signal information> ] > > <signal value> ::= > <condition name> > | <sqlstate value> > > <condition name> ::= > <identifier> > > <sqlstate value> ::= > SQLSTATE [ VALUE ] <character string literal> > > <set signal information> ::= > SET <signal information item list> > > <signal information item list> ::= > <signal information item> [ { <comma> <signal information item> > }... ] > > <signal information item> ::= > <condition information item name> <equals operator> <simple > value specification> > > If we're willing to invent Postgres-specific <condition information item > names> for MESSAGE, DETAIL, etc, then this is just about isomorphic to > the proposed RAISE syntax, except that if you want an elog level other > than ERROR you'd have to specify it as an item in the SET-list. > > BTW, the spec also uses <condition name> and <sqlstate value> as above > in handler declarations, so it looks like both Pavel and I got it wrong > about how to extend the EXCEPTION syntax: it should be > SQLSTATE [VALUE] 'xxxxx' > > regards, tom lane >
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. Regards Pavel Stehule -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers