Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-11-29T18:38:28Z

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 →

Add const qualifiers to node inspection functions
- d5f23af6bfbc 9.2.0 cited

Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar nov 29 14:37:24 -0300 2011:
> 2011/11/29 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> > I don't think renaming is necessary.  plpgsql is a standalone shared
> > library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself.
> >
> > Possibly a larger question, though, is whether you really need a new
> > source file.  If that results in having to export functions that
> > otherwise could stay static, maybe it's not the best choice.
> 

> Some refactoring of pl_exec should be nice - a management of row,
> record variables and array fields is part that can be shared with
> SQL/PSM interpret. But I have not idea how it realize.

I proposed at the PL summit that perhaps we should have some sort of PL
lib that would be shared by plpgsql and plpsm, to reduce code
duplication.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support