2015-01-26 22:34 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>:
> On 1/22/15 2:01 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>>
>> * I would to simplify a behave of evaluating of message
>> expression - probably I disallow NULL there.
>>
>>
>> Well, the only thing I could see you doing there is throwing a
>> different error if the hint is null. I don't see that as an improvement.
>> I'd just leave it as-is.
>>
>>
>> I enabled a NULL - but enforced a WARNING before.
>>
>
> I don't see the separate warning as being helpful. I'd just do something
> like
>
> + (err_hint != NULL) ? errhint("%s",
> err_hint) : errhint("Message attached to failed assertion is null") ));
>
>
ok
> There should also be a test case for a NULL message.
>
> * GUC enable_asserts will be supported
>>
>>
>> That would be good. Would that allow for enabling/disabling on a
>> per-function basis too?
>>
>>
>> sure - there is only question if we develop a #option
>> enable|disable_asserts. I have no string idea.
>>
>
> The option would be nice, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. The
> big thing is being able to control this on a per-function basis (which I
> think you can do with ALTER FUNCTION SET?)
you can do it without any change now
>
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>
