On 7/26/14, 8:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> writes:
I'm not sure which case you're envisioning. A label is required, and
the label must be that of a BEGIN block with an EXCEPTION block if USING
ROLLBACK is specified. If that doesn't answer your question, could try
and explain (perhaps in the form of an example) which problem you're seeing?
Well, restrictions of that sort might dodge the implementation problem,
but they make the construct even less orthogonal. (And the restriction as
stated isn't good enough anyway, since I could still place such an EXIT in
the EXCEPTION part of the block.)
That's a good point; the patch would have to be changed to disallow this
case.
Basically my point is that this just seems like inventing another way to
do what one can already do with RAISE, and it doesn't have much redeeming
social value to justify the cognitive load of inventing another construct.
Yes, you can already do this with RAISE but that seems more like an
accident than anything else. I feel a dedicated syntax is less error
prone and makes the intent clearer to people reading the code. But I
realize I might be in the minority with this.
.marko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
