Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Petr Jelínek <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
Date: 2012-03-03T06:03:25Z
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

2012/3/3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>:
>
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
>
>> > Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
>> > directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
>> > few SPI lines. I don't understand why you don't like SPI.
>
> I don't dislike SPI in general.  I just dislike using it internally in
> the backend.  Other than RI, it's not used anywhere.

>
>> > It is used more times in code for similar purpose.
>>
>> this disallow direct PL check function call - so any more complex
>> situation cannot be solved by SQL, but must be solved by PL/pgSQL with
>> dynamic SQL
>
> Nonsense.  Where did you get this idea?  I did not touch the plpgsql
> code at all, it'd still work exactly as in your original patch.


ok

I am sorry

Pavel

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