Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2022-Dec-09, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... So I think it might be >> okay to say "if you want soft error treatment for a domain, >> make sure its check constraints don't throw errors".
> I think that's fine. If the user does, say "CHECK (value > 0)" and that > results in a soft error, that seems to me enough support for now. If > they want to do something more elaborate, they can write C functions. > Maybe eventually we'll want to offer some other mechanism that doesn't > require C, but let's figure out what the requirements are. I don't > think we know that, at this point.
A fallback we can offer to anyone with such a problem is "write a plpgsql function and wrap the potentially-failing bit in an exception block". Then they get to pay the cost of the subtransaction, while we're not imposing one on everybody else.
regards, tom lane
That exception block will prevent parallel plans. I'm not saying it isn't the best way forward for us, but wanted to make that side effect clear.
