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.
> 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
