Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-03-09T20:15:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On tor, 2012-03-08 at 19:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > * It's not terribly important to me to be able to run checkers > > separately. If I wanted to do that, I would just disable or > > remove the checker. > > Does this requirement mean that you want to essentially associate a > set of checkers with each language and then, when asked to check a > function, run all of them serially in an undefined order? Well, the more I think about it and look at this patch, the more I think that this would be complete overkill and possibly quite useless for my purposes. I can implement the entire essence of this framework (except the plpgsql_checker itself, which is clearly useful) in 10 lines, namely: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pep8(src text) RETURNS text IMMUTABLE LANGUAGE plsh AS $$ #!/bin/bash pep8 --ignore=W391 <(echo "$1") 2>&1 | sed -r 's/^[^:]*://' $$; SELECT proname, pep8(prosrc) FROM pg_proc WHERE prolang = ANY (SELECT oid FROM pg_language WHERE lanname LIKE '%python%') ORDER BY 1; I don't know what more one would need.