Re: PL/pgSQL 2

2014-09-02 18:03 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>:

> On 09/02/2014 06:44 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, but your code can have a bug.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the main use case is to allow buggy functions which are deployed
>>> to production without adequate testing to be detected? Bugs like
>>> not getting the primary key column(s) right? I think it would be
>>> great to have some way to generate an error if a given statement
>>> doesn't affect exactly one row, but the above is a pretty weak
>>> argument for making it a default behavior.
>>>
>>
>> Instead of writing unit tests for such trivial things as updating one row
>> and testing if it got updated, it's better to make such unit tests
>> asserts instead,
>> which is exactly what we achieve if we provide a syntax to throw an error
>> if
>> not exactly 1 row was affected.
>>
>
> Marko posted a patch to add assertions to PL/pgSQL last year, see
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5234AF3F.4000409@joh.to. It was a
> long thread, but in the end I think everyone was more or less OK with the
> syntax "ASSERT <condition>;". I also think that syntax is fine, and it
> would be a nice feature, assuming we can avoid reserving the ASSERT keyword.
>
> I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an
> UPDATE only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after
> the update.
>

I like it

Regards

Pavel

>
> - Heikki
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>