On 10/17/15 11:49 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2015-10-17 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com
> <mailto:Jim.Nasby@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
