Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-30T16:09:13Z
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

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:

> A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
> it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
> control which checks are applied.  And I see no provision for that here.
> This is not something we can add later, at least not without breaking
> the API for the check function --- and if we're willing to break API,
> why not just add some more parameters to the validator and avoid having
> a second function?

How about

CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)

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