Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension
Date
Msg-id 28012.1210697623@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension  (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>)
Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension  ("Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> who write this patch?

Well, like I said, I'm willing to adjust the patch to whatever syntax
we come up with.

After sleeping on it I'm a bit less excited about using the SQL/PSM
SIGNAL syntax; the reason being that if we use that, and then sometime
in the future we read the spec more closely and find out that it demands
different behavior than RAISE has, we'd have a compatibility problem.
Inventing PG-only additions to RAISE doesn't carry that risk.

So right now I'm thinking I like my original proposal
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00357.php
with the exception that we should go withSQLSTATE 'xyzzy'
as the syntax in EXCEPTION lists.  Also I'm willing to go with
ERRCODE rather than CODE as the name of the USING option, since
Pavel didn't like CODE.  (I don't want to use SQLSTATE for it,
because with this syntax it's pretty clear that SQLSTATE means
one of the 5-letter codes, *not* a condition name.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shane Ambler
Date:
Subject: Re: psql \? help display
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: psql wrapped format default for backslash-d commands