Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
> On 3/25/15 1:21 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2015-03-25 0:17 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>>:
>>> (BTW, is considering
>>> NULL to be a failure the right thing? SQL CHECK conditions consider
>>> NULL to be allowed ...)
>> This is a question - I am happy with SQL CHECK for data, but I am not
>> sure if same behave is safe for plpgsql (procedural) assert. More
>> stricter behave is safer - and some bugs in procedures are based on
>> unhandled NULLs in variables. So in this topic I prefer implemented
>> behave. It is some like:
> +1. I think POLA here is that an assert must be true and only true to be
> valid. If someone was unhappy with that they could always coalesce(...,
> true).
Fair enough. Committed with the other changes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
