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 that if we use that, and then sometime > in the future we read the spec more closely and find out that it demands > different behavior than RAISE has, we'd have a compatibility problem. > Inventing PG-only additions to RAISE doesn't carry that risk. > > 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 USING option, since > Pavel didn't like CODE. (I don't want to use SQLSTATE for it, > because with this syntax it's pretty clear that SQLSTATE means > one of the 5-letter codes, *not* a condition name.) > > regards, tom lane >
+1 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
