Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-30T16:13:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add const qualifiers to node inspection functions

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> On the whole, it might not be a bad idea to have two allowed signatures
>> for the validator function, rather than inventing an additional column
>> in pg_language. But the fundamental point IMHO is that there needs to
>> be a provision to pass language-dependent validation options to the
>> function, whether it's the existing validator or a separate checker
>> entry point.

> Something like:
> CHECK FUNCTION proname(proargs) WITH (...fdw-style elastic options...)

Great minds think alike ... that was pretty much exactly the syntax that
was in the back of my mind.

			regards, tom lane