Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2014-11-19 23:18, Pavel Stehule wrote:

2014-11-19 18:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

FWIW, I would vote against it also.  I do not find this to be a natural
extension of RAISE; it adds all sorts of semantic issues.  (In

particular,

what is the evaluation order of the WHEN versus the other subexpressions
of the RAISE?)

What I liked about this syntax was that we could eventually have:
RAISE ASSERT WHEN stuff;
...and if assertions are disabled, we can skip evaluating the
condition.  If you just write an IF .. THEN block you can't do that.

Well, if that's what you want, let's just invent

ASSERT condition

there was this proposal .. ASSERT statement .. related discuss was
finished, because it needs a reserved keyword "ASSERT".

Finished?  Really?

This was Heikki's take on the discussion that took place a good while ago: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5405FF73.1010206@vmware.com. And in the same thread you also said you like it: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRAC-ZWDrbU-uj=xQOWQtbAqR5oXsM1xYOyhZmyeuvZvQA@mail.gmail.co.  But perhaps you've changed your mind since then (which is fine.)  Or maybe that was only in the case where we'd have a special mode where you could opt-in if you're willing to accept the backwards compatibility issue?

I also went back to the original thread, and I think Heikki's summary dismissed e.g. Robert's criticism quite lightly: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobWoSSRNcV_iJK3xhsytXb7Dv0AWGvWkMEurNTOVEZYyw@mail.gmail.com

.marko