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: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-29T17:15:26Z
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:
> 2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
>> There are a lot of small changes to pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, are they all
>> necessary? For example, why was copy_plpgsql_datum renamed to
>> plpgsql_copy_datum?

> yes, it's necessary - a implementation is in new file and there is
> necessary call a functions from pg_compile and pg_exec files -
> checking is between compilation and execution - so some functions
> should not be static now. All plpgsql public functions should start
> with plpgsql_ prefix. It is reason for renaming.

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.

			regards, tom lane