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: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-30T16:14:25Z
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

2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>:
>
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:
>
>> A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
>> it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
>> control which checks are applied.  And I see no provision for that here.
>> This is not something we can add later, at least not without breaking
>> the API for the check function --- and if we're willing to break API,
>> why not just add some more parameters to the validator and avoid having
>> a second function?
>
> How about
>
> CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)

this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?

Pavel



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