Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRCzkjVz-8Cxgq08vmweanP7uvDuRrgchv+GMYjeR5sOgQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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
>


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add minor version to v3 protocol to allow changes without breaking backwards compatibility