On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > Probably it was my request. I don't like to using NULL as value, that should > be ignored. The "hint" is clean, there NULL can be ignored, but what about > DETAIL or MESSAGE?
If the field is required - as MESSAGE is - then its absence is an error. If the field is optional, treat a NULL if the parameter were not supplied.
I understand well, what was proposed. Personally I see small risk, but I am thinking so can be useful if users can choose between two possibilities (strict, and NULL tolerant). For some adhoc work it can be useful.
> I am strong in my opinion about PLpgSQL RAISE statement behave, but on > second hand, proposed function should not be 100% same as RAISE stmt. More > we can simply add a parameter like "ignore_nulls"
I would be willing to bet you a drink that 99.9% of people will want the behavior Jim is advocating, so I don't think this should be configurable.
99.9% of people can think so it is good idea to the moment, when the important information will be lost without any hint, why it was lost.
