| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-11-30 16:13:58 |
| Message-ID: | 12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> On the whole, it might not be a bad idea to have two allowed signatures
>> for the validator function, rather than inventing an additional column
>> in pg_language. But the fundamental point IMHO is that there needs to
>> be a provision to pass language-dependent validation options to the
>> function, whether it's the existing validator or a separate checker
>> entry point.
> Something like:
> CHECK FUNCTION proname(proargs) WITH (...fdw-style elastic options...)
Great minds think alike ... that was pretty much exactly the syntax that
was in the back of my mind.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-11-30 16:14:25 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-11-30 16:09:55 | Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches |