2015-10-17 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>: > On 10/15/15 11:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I don't think so ignoring NULL in RAISE statement is good idea (it is >> not safe). We can replace NULL by some string (like "NULL") by default. >> I am thinking about other possibilities. >> > > What I was trying to say is that if the argument to a USING option is NULL > then RAISE should skip over it, as if it hadn't been applied at all. > Similar to how the code currently tests for \0. >
I understand, but I don't prefer this behave. The NULL is strange value and should be signalized. > > 1. some RAISE statement flag - but there was strong disagreement when I >> did it last time >> 2. some plpgsql GUC variables like plpgsq.raise_ignore_null >> 3. accept a function from this patch >> >> Now, I am thinking so @3 is good option. It can be really useful as last >> rescue for other PL without possibility to raise rich PostgreSQL >> exception - currently PLPythonu, partially PLPerl (where are more >> issues), probably in others. >> > > I agree, assuming the patch exposes all the stuff you can do with USING in > plpgsql. > -- > Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX > Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL > Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com >
