Actually, at least in some cases, PG does short-circuit logic:
create function seeme() returns bool as '
begin
raise notice ''seeme'';
return true;
end'
language plpgsql;
joel@joel=# select false and seeme();
?column?
----------
f
(1 row)
joel@joel=# select true and seeme();
NOTICE: seeme
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)
In your case, the problem is short-circuiting a test, it's that the full
statement must be parsed and prepared, and it's probably in this stage that
the illegal use of old. in an insert jumps up.
HTH.
Joel BURTON | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton
Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Louis-David
> Mitterrand
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [HACKERS] wierd AND condition evaluation for plpgsql
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed plpgsql evaluates all AND'ed conditions even if the first
> one fails. Example:
>
> elsif TG_OP = ''UPDATE'' and old.type_reponse = ''abandon''
>
> This will break stuff if the trigger is used on INSERT as
> "old.type_reponse" will be substituted and return an error.
>
> Shouldn't plpgsql shortcut AND conditions when a previous one fails, as
> perl does?
>
> --
> OENONE: Quoi ?
> PHEDRE: Je te l'ai prédit, mais tu n'as pas voulu.
> (Phèdre, J-B Racine,
> acte 3, scène 3)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
