Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Excerpts from Petr Jelínek's message of sáb mar 03 10:26:04 -0300 2012:
> On 03/03/2012 02:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
> > FUNCTION?
> >
> > check function f1();
> > CHECK FUNCTION
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > In function: 'f1()'
> > error:42804:5:assignment:subscripted object is not an array
> > (2 rows)

> Well, if you want nicely formated table you can always call the checker
> function directly, I think the statement returning something that is
> more human and less machine is more consistent approach with the rest of
> the utility commands. In other words I don't really see the point of it.

I am not against having some more human readable output than plain
tabular. In particular the idea that we need to have all fields is of
course open to discussion. But is the output as proposed above really
all that human friendly? I disagree that it cannot be improved.

BTW one thing that's missing in this feature so far is some
translatability of the returned output.

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