Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-30T16:19:05Z
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

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>:
>> How about
>> CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)

> this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?

It seems pretty awkward to me, particularly putting the options before
the second keyword of the command --- that could bite us if we ever want
some other flavors of CHECK command.  I prefer Robert's suggestion of a
WITH clause at the end.

			regards, tom lane