Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PL/sh is OK, but both PL/Ruby and PL/Java play around with Warn_restart.
Are they using it to fake try/catch behavior? If so, see later thread
about moving to a simple set of try/catch macros.
I currently have this up and seemi
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PL/sh is OK, but both PL/Ruby and PL/Java play around with Warn_restart.
Are they using it to fake try/catch behavior? If so, see later thread
about moving to a simple set of try/catch macros.
I currently have this up and seemingly working for the
Am Sonntag, 25. Juli 2004 01:48 schrieb Tom Lane:
> One issue is that it may break existing PLs that override Warn_restart,
> since the semantics of doing that will have changed a bit. We can
> easily fix the PLs that are in our own CVS, but what are the
> implications for other PLs such as PL/R a
> I was just looking around the net to see exactly what Oracle's PL/SQL
> syntax is. It doesn't seem too unreasonable syntax-wise:
>
> BEGIN
> ... controlled statements ...
> EXCEPTION
> WHEN exception_name THEN
> ... error handling s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
| Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|>Tom Lane wrote:
|>| I was just looking around the net to see exactly what Oracle's PL/SQL
|>| syntax is. It doesn't seem too unreasonable syntax-wise:
|>| [ snip pl/sql syntax ]
|
|
|>
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> | I was just looking around the net to see exactly what Oracle's PL/SQL
> | syntax is. It doesn't seem too unreasonable syntax-wise:
> | [ snip pl/sql syntax ]
> Is this sintax SQL standard driven ?
No, AFAIK it's just Oracle's sy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
| Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|>So it allows functions to use subtransactions and recover from errors.
|>I thought that was more than we could do for 7.5 and in fact the release
|>notes now saw that will be done in a futu
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am _still_ unclear on what still needs to be done to complete NT and
> > PITR. Are you more aware of the open issues?
>
> NT: feature-wise, we need to commit the SAVEPOINT-syntax patch, which
> I think needs only minor adjustments,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am _still_ unclear on what still needs to be done to complete NT and
> PITR. Are you more aware of the open issues?
NT: feature-wise, we need to commit the SAVEPOINT-syntax patch, which
I think needs only minor adjustments, and we need to do something
I agree we don't want to add a savepoint on top of the exceptions as you
stated below.
I am _still_ unclear on what still needs to be done to complete NT and
PITR. Are you more aware of the open issues?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it allows functions to use subtransactions and recover from errors.
> I thought that was more than we could do for 7.5 and in fact the release
> notes now saw that will be done in a future release.
I think there's only a day or two's work between her
Tom Lane wrote:
One issue is that it may break existing PLs that override Warn_restart,
since the semantics of doing that will have changed a bit. We can
easily fix the PLs that are in our own CVS, but what are the
implications for other PLs such as PL/R and PL/SH? Joe, Peter, any
comments?
I am
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes. This is an integral part of finishing nested transactions.
> Oh, is this exceptions in functions or the ability to allow functions to
> keep executing after an SQL error?
Those are the same thing, aren't they? But yes, that's t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are you suggesting these changes for 7.5?
>
> Yes. This is an integral part of finishing nested transactions.
Oh, is this exceptions in functions or the ability to allow functions to
keep executing after an SQL error?
--
Bruce M
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yes. This is an integral part of finishing nested transactions.
>
> > Oh, is this exceptions in functions or the ability to allow functions to
> > keep executing after an SQL error?
>
> Those are the same thing,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you suggesting these changes for 7.5?
Yes. This is an integral part of finishing nested transactions.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscri
Are you suggesting these changes for 7.5?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, the way that ereport/elog processing works is:
>
> 1. Collect up all the error parameter information into an ErrorData
> structure. (This is somewh
17 matches
Mail list logo
