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: "Tom Lane *EXTERN*" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-08T14:07:07Z
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

Attachments

Hello

updated version

changes:

* CHECK FUNCTION ALL; is enabled - in this case functions from
pg_catalog schema are ignored

I looked on parser, and I didn't other changes there - IN SCHEMA, FOR
ROLE are used more time there, so our usage will be consistent

Regards

Pavel

2011/12/7 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> The syntax error messages are still inadequate; all I can get is
>>> 'syntax error at or near "%s"'.  They should be more detailed.
>>
>> this system is based on error messages that generates a plpgsql engine
>> or bison engine. I can correct only a few percent from these messages
>> :(
>>
>> internally I didn't wrote a compiler or plpgsql checker - this is just
>> tool that can emit some plpgsql interpret subprocess - and when these
>> subprocesses raises exceptions, then takes their messages.
>
> I see.
>
>>> I think that at least the documentation should be improved before
>>> I am ready to set this as "ready for committer".
>>
>> please, can you send a correction to documentation or error messages?
>>
>> I am not able to write documentation
>
> I'll give it a try.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe