On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 11/19/2014 06:35 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> I seem to share the same opinion with Andrew: its not going to hurt to >>> include this, but its not gonna cause dancing in the streets either. I >>> would characterize that as 2 very neutral and unimpressed people, plus >>> 3 in favour. Which seems enough to commit. > >> That's about right, although I would put it a bit stronger than that. >> But if we're the only people unimpressed I'm not going to object further. > > FWIW, I would vote against it also. I do not find this to be a natural > extension of RAISE; it adds all sorts of semantic issues. (In particular, > what is the evaluation order of the WHEN versus the other subexpressions > of the RAISE?)
What I liked about this syntax was that we could eventually have: RAISE ASSERT WHEN stuff; ...and if assertions are disabled, we can skip evaluating the condition. If you just write an IF .. THEN block you can't do that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
