2008/5/13 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> who write this patch?
>
> Well, like I said, I'm willing to adjust the patch to whatever syntax
> we come up with.
>
> After sleeping on it I'm a bit less excited about using the SQL/PSM
> SIGNAL syntax; the reason being that if we use that, and then sometime
> in the future we read the spec more closely and find out that it demands
> different behavior than RAISE has, we'd have a compatibility problem.
> Inventing PG-only additions to RAISE doesn't carry that risk.
>
> So right now I'm thinking I like my original proposal
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00357.php
> with the exception that we should go with
> SQLSTATE 'xyzzy'
> as the syntax in EXCEPTION lists. Also I'm willing to go with
> ERRCODE rather than CODE as the name of the USING option, since
> Pavel didn't like CODE. (I don't want to use SQLSTATE for it,
> because with this syntax it's pretty clear that SQLSTATE means
> one of the 5-letter codes, *not* a condition name.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
+1
Regards
Pavel Stehule