Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-13T12:59:51Z
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

2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> One thing I forgot to mention:
>>> I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
>>> to pass options to the checker function:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>>
>>> I think this should be there so that the API does not have to be
>>> changed in the future.
>>>
>
>> there is just one question - how propagate options to check functions
>>
>> I am thinking about third parameter - probably text array
>
> Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type "internal"?
>

this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we
cannot to call check function directly

Regards

Pavel




> I don't know what is most natural or convenient.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe