2014-09-02 18:03 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com>:
> On 09/02/2014 06:44 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: >> >>> Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: >>> >>>> No, but your code can have a bug. >>>> >>> >>> So the main use case is to allow buggy functions which are deployed >>> to production without adequate testing to be detected? Bugs like >>> not getting the primary key column(s) right? I think it would be >>> great to have some way to generate an error if a given statement >>> doesn't affect exactly one row, but the above is a pretty weak >>> argument for making it a default behavior. >>> >> >> Instead of writing unit tests for such trivial things as updating one row >> and testing if it got updated, it's better to make such unit tests >> asserts instead, >> which is exactly what we achieve if we provide a syntax to throw an error >> if >> not exactly 1 row was affected. >> > > Marko posted a patch to add assertions to PL/pgSQL last year, see > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5234af3f.4000...@joh.to. It was a > long thread, but in the end I think everyone was more or less OK with the > syntax "ASSERT <condition>;". I also think that syntax is fine, and it > would be a nice feature, assuming we can avoid reserving the ASSERT keyword. > > I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an > UPDATE only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after > the update. > I like it Regards Pavel > > - Heikki > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
