2008/5/12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> I like this syntax, but I am not if it's good idea add new similar
>> statement. I don't know - but maybe it's can be better then extending
>> RAISE - and way to get consensus.
>
> I looked a bit more at the SQL spec. It already defines a <condition
> information item name> MESSAGE_TEXT, which arguably is what we should
> use for the primary message item, but that seems unpleasantly long for
> something that's going to be used in pretty much every SIGNAL command.
> Also there's a question of whether it's supposed to mean the *complete*
> message delivered to a client, which would subsume DETAIL, HINT, etc
> in our scheme. So I'm a bit tempted to stick with MESSAGE, DETAIL,
> and HINT as the settable options if we go with SQL/PSM-derived syntax.
> We'd also want LEVEL or something to be able to specify non-ERROR
> elog levels.
>
I agree
> Also, as to the re-throw-an-error capability, SQL/PSM defines a RESIGNAL
> command that does this. I propose implementing only the parameterless
> variant of this, at least for the time being. (The spec appears to
> intend that RESIGNAL can override selected fields of the error being
> re-thrown, which doesn't strike me as a terribly good idea --- you could
> end up with a completely nonsensical error report.)
>
ok
> regards, tom lane
>
who write this patch?
Pavel
