2014-11-19 17:43 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > 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. >
I share this idea. It is possible next step Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
