On 10/17/15 11:49 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-10-17 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com <mailto: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.
So instead of raising the message we wanted, we throw a completely different exception? How does that make sense?
More to the point, if RAISE operated this way then it would be trivial to create a fully functional plpgsql wrapper around it.
-- 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
